1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * *

7 TAYLOR TOUSSAIN, Case No. 2:22-CV-917 JCM (BNW)

8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER

9 v.

10 HOME DEPOT USA INC. dba THE HOME DEPOT, 11 Defendant(s). 12

13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Brenda Weksler’s report and 14 recommendation (“R&R”) to deny plaintiff Toussain (“plaintiff”)’s motion to amend. (ECF 15 No. 34). 16 This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 17 recommendations made by the magistrate.”

(b)(1). Where a party timely 18 objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make 19 a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which 20 objection is made.”

21 Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review 22 at all…of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

, 149 23 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review 24 a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 25 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of 26 review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which 27 no objections were made). 28 1 No objections were filed to the R&R in this case and the deadline to do so has passed. 2| Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the R&R and hereby ADOPTS the magistrate judge’s findings. A Accordingly, 5 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Weksler’s R&R 6| (ECF No. 34) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. 7 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion to amend (ECF No. 17) is 8 | DENIED. 9 DATED May 24, 2023. 10 btw ©. Atala ll UNITED) STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

es C. Mahan District Judge _2-