Reflex Media, Inc. v. Richard Easton Limited

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA REFLEX MEDIA, INC., a Nevada ) corporation; and CLOVER 8 INVESTMENTS ) PTE. LTD., a Singapore corporation, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-00051-GMN-EJY ) 6 Plaintiffs, ) ORDER vs. ) 7 ) RICHARD EASTON LIMITED, a Delaware ) corporation, d/b/a www.FirstDateClub.com; ) RICHARD EASTON, an individual; MARIA ) JOSE DIAZ, an individual; NELIDA TEJEDA ) ALVAREZ, an individual; JORGE OSBALDO ) RODRIGUEZ, an individual; and DOES 1-10, ) inclusive, ) ) Defendants. ) 13 ) 14 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, (ECF No. 51), which recommends that Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 33), as to Defendants Maria Diaz, Nelida Alvarez, Jorge Rodriguez, and Richard Easton (in his individual capacity) be denied without prejudice.

18 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge.

23 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

4 Here, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Non-Objection to the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 52).

6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 51), is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Request for Entry of Default, (ECF No. 33), as to Defendants Diaz, Alvarez, Rodriguez, and Easton (in his individual capacity) be DENIED without prejudice.

12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be advised to refile their Motion for Entry of Clerk’s Default as to Defendants Diaz, Alvarez, and Rodriguez, and that once default is entered, Plaintiffs proceed with a motion for default judgment against all Defendants except Easton in his individual capacity.

16 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs be advised that default and/or default judgment cannot be pursued against Easton, in his individual capacity, at this time because he is currently participating in the litigation.

19 DATED this __1_9_ day of November, 2021.

21 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 22 United States District Court