Wealthy Inc. v. Cornelia

4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * WEALTHY, INC., et al., Case No. 2:21-CV-1173 JCM (EJY) 8 Plaintiff(s), ORDER 9 v. SPENCER CORNELIA, et al., 11 Defendant(s).

13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Elayna Youchah’s report and recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 226). She recommends that plaintiffs’ motion to amend their complaint (ECF No. 141) be DENIED, without prejudice. Specifically, she recommends denying the motion until this court has resolved all pending dispositive motions.

17 No objections were filed to the R&R. Thus, the court is not obligated to conduct a de novo review of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (requiring courts to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings to which objection is made”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (“[T]he district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.” (emphasis in original)).

23 Accordingly, 24 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Youchah’s R&R (ECF No. 226) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED.

26 . . .

27 . . .

28 . . .

1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ motion for leave to amend (ECF No. 141) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED, without prejudice.

3 DATED June 21, 2023.

4 MB 0. Atala 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE es C. Mahan District Judge _2-