District Court, D. Nevada, 2025

Hezekiah Esau Baker v. Penny Opco, LLC

Hezekiah Esau Baker v. Penny Opco, LLC
District Court, D. Nevada · Decided December 3, 2025
Hezekiah Esau Baker v. Penny Opco, LLC

Trial Court Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA HEZEKIAH ESAU BAKER, Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-02084-GMN-EJY vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND PENNY OPCO, LLC, RECOMMENDATION Defendant.

9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 35), from United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, which recommends granting Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

12 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. 21 140, 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).

24 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF No. 35) (setting a November 21, 2025, deadline for objections).

2 Accordingly, 3 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 35), is |} ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

5 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 21), is ||GRANTED. Plaintiff's claim of general negligence proceeds and damages thereunder may be ||sought, but such damages cannot include an award of punitive damages.

8 Dated this 3 day of December, 2025.

Yj, 10 UY Iv Grow . Navarro, District Judge 1 United States District Court Page 2 of 2

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.