Pasiecznik v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc.

6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 * * * William J. Pasiecznik Case No. 2:20-cv-02202-RFB-BNW 10 Plaintiff, ORDER 11 v. Home Depot U.S.A., Inc. 13 Defendant.

15 Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 29] of the Honorable Brenda Weksler, United States Magistrate Judge, entered August 3, 2021.

17 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.

25 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by August 17, 2021. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

28 . . .

1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 29] is | ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

3 IT IS FURTHER. ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to amend [ECF No. 10] is 4| DENIED.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to remand [ECF No. 11] 1s 6| DENIED.

DATED: September 19, 2021.

9 As I 10 United States District Judge -2-