Motley v. State of Nevada

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA COURTNEY MOTLEY, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:21-cv-02075-GMN-BNW vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING STATE OF NEVADA, et al., REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Defendants.

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 88), from United States Magistrate Brenda N. Weksler recommending that Plaintiff Courtney Motley’s Amended Relief Request and Motion for Extra Garnishments, which Magistrate Judge Weksler interprets as a Motion to Amend, be denied for failure to follow the applicable local rules and Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (See generally R&R, ECF No. 88).

14 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 if the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 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. 23 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).

1 No objections to the R&R were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See || generally R&R) (setting a May 9, 2025, deadline for objections).

3 Accordingly, 4 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 88), is || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

6 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Amended Relief Request and Motion for || Extra Garnishments, (ECF No. 83), is DENIED.

8 Dated this 30 day of May, 2025.

iy □□ Gloria M. arro, District Judge United States District Court Page 2 of 2