DuBose v. Hilton Grand Vacations Club, LLC

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA — 3 — BARBARA DUBOSE, — 4 — Plaintiff, Case No.: 2:24-cv-00648-GMN-DJA — 5 — vs. 6 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND HILTON GRAND VACATIONS CLUB, RECOMMENDATION 7 LLC., — 8 — Defendant. — 9 — 10 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), (ECF No. 44), 11 of United States Magistrate Daniel J. Albregts. Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, has disengaged 12 from this case, resulting in the Court granting in part a motion for sanctions. (See Order, ECF 13 No. 42). In that Order, the Court declined to enter sanctions, but ordered Plaintiff to show 14 cause why the Court should not impose the sanctions that Defendant requested. (Id.). Plaintiff 15 did not respond to the order to show cause, and Magistrate Judge Albregts now recommends 16 the dismissal of this action and the imposition of sanctions. 17 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 18 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B); 19 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 20 determination of those portions to which objections are made if the Magistrate Judge’s findings 21 and recommendations concern matters that may not be finally determined by a magistrate 22 judge. D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). The Court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 23 findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1); D. Nev. R. 24 IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any 25 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 1 || 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a 2 || district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s R&R where no objections have been 3 || filed. See, e.g., United States v. Reyna—Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 4 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See R&R, ECF 5 || No. 44) (setting a January 24, 2025 deadline for objections). 6 Accordingly, 7 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 44), is 8 || ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. 9 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice. 10 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 8), is denied as 11 |}MOOT. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that sanctions are imposed against Plaintiff in the form 13 || of Defendant’s attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in preparing the motion to compel. 14 The Court kindly directs the Clerk of Court to close the case. 15 Dated this _27_ day of January, 2025. 16 Vif, 17 (lh □□ Gloria MJ Navarro, District Judge 18 Gloria Ne District Court — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — Page 2 of 2