1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 NAVAJO HEALTH FOUNDATION – SAGE ) 4 MEMORIAL HOSPITAL, Inc., ) ) Case No.: 2:19-cv-00329-GMN-EJY 5 Plaintiff, ) 6 vs. ) ORDER ) 7 RAZAGHI DEVELOPMENT COMPANY, ) LLC, et al., ) 8 ) Defendants. ) 9 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 210), 11 of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends denying Defendants’ 12 Motion for Sanctions, (ECF No. 174), and denying Plaintiff’s request for sanctions argued in its 13 Response, (ECF No. 183). 14 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 15 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4.

(b)(1)(B); 16 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 17 determination of those portions to which objections are made. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court 18 may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by 19 the Magistrate Judge.

(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to 20 object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is 21 not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to 23 review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States 24 v. Reyna–Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). 25 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 1 ECF No. 210) (setting an October 12, 2022, deadline for objections). 2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 210), is 4 ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 5 Dated this _1_3__ day of October, 2022. 6 7 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 8 United States District Court 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25