Wang v. Costco Wholesale Corporation

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 Meizhen Wang, Case No.: 2:23-cv-01097-JAD-BNW 4 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report and 5 v. Recommendation Regarding Motion to Amend Complaint 6 Costco Wholesale Corporation; Doe Equipment Operator, et al., [ECF Nos. 16, 20] [7] Defendants [8] 9 The magistrate judge has considered the plaintiff’s motion to file an amended complaint1 10 and recommends that the motion be granted in part and denied in part: Plaintiff may amend the 11 complaint to (1) clarify the type of equipment that caused the accident, and/or (2) add that she is 12 pursuing a respondeat superior theory of liability, and/or (3) remove the Doe Equipment 13 Operator, but she may not substitute in Leonardo Lopez as a party.2 The deadline for any party 14 to object to that recommendation was yesterday, and no party filed anything or asked to extend 15 the deadline to do so. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report and 16 recommendation unless objections are filed.”3 Having reviewed the report and recommendation, 17 I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. [20] 21 1 ECF No. 16. [22] 2 ECF No. 20. 3 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 23 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation [ECF No. 20] is ADOPTED in its entirety. The motion to amend [ECF No. 16] is granted in part and denied in part as set forth in that recommendation. 5 U.S. DistrioiTudse Jennifer A, Dosey January 25, 2024 [10] 1]