Weinstein v. BMW Financial Services NA LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *

M PAUL WEINSTEIN, Case No. 2:20-cv-00550-RFB-DJA Plaintiff,

ORDER v.

BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES NA LLC, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 24] of the Honorable Daniel J. Albregts, United States Magistrate Judge, entered December 4, 2020.

A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 20

636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct “any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge.

Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by December 18, 2020. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

. . .

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 24] 1s ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff M Paul Weinstein’s Motion for Leave to Amend Complaint Based on Newly Discovery Evidence [ECF No. 19] is denied.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Stipulation for Extension [ECF No. 17] is granted nunc pro tune.

DATED: February/3, 2021. ay sn ED ARE, II

United States District Judge