Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department v. US Currency $535,746.24

District Court, D. Nevada

Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department v. US Currency $535,746.24

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:21-cv-00950-GMN-VCF 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER US CURRENCY $535,746.24, ) 7 ) Defendant. ) 8 ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 21), of United 10 States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach, which states that Plaintiff Las Vegas Metropolitan 11 Police Department’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 6), should be granted. 12 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 13 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)(B); 14 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 15 determination of those portions to which objections are made.

Id.

The Court may accept, reject, 16 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 17

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 18 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 19 objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

474 U.S. 140, 149

(1985) (citing

28 U.S.C. § 636

(b)(1)). Indeed, 20 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 21 judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United 22 States v. Reyna–Tapia,

328 F.3d 1114, 1122

(9th Cir. 2003). 23 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 24 ECF No. 21) (setting a February 23, 2022, deadline for objections). 25 // 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 21), is 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Las Vegas Metropolitan Police 5 Department’s Motion to Remand, (ECF No. 6), is GRANTED. 6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that interested party Steven C. Gazlay’s Motion to Set 7 Aside Default and Default Judgment, (ECF No. 11), Motion for Evidentiary Hearing, (ECF No. 8 12), and Motion to Stay Execution, (ECF No. 13), are DENIED as moot. 9 The Clerk is instructed to close the case. 10 Dated this _2_4__ day of February, 2022. 11 12 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 13 United States District Court 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Reference

Status
Unknown