United States District Court, D. Nevada
July 10, 2014
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS UNION LOCAL 525 HEALTH AND WELFARE TRUST AND PLAN; BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS UNION LOCAL 525 PENSION PLAN; AND BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE PLUMBERS AND PIPEFITTERS LOCAL UNION 525 APPRENTICE AND JOURNEYMAN TRAINING TRUST FOR SOUTHERN NEVADA, Plaintiff,
ALL SEASONS INTERIOR & EXTERIOR MAINTENANCE, dba GREAT BASIN PLUMBING, a Nevada corporation, Defendants.
MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.
Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Carl. W. Hoffman, Jr.'s Report and Recommendation to enter default against Defendant All Seasons Interior and Exterior Maintenance based on its failure to appear. (Dkt. no. 22.) The Court allowed Defendant to file any objections by May 16, 2014. ( Id. ) No objections have been filed.
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review "any issue that is not the subject of an objection"). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review in order to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The R&R recommends entry of default based on Defendant's failure to appear even though Defendant has been given numerous opportunities to do so. After granting Defendant's counsel's withdrawal request, the Court notified Defendant that it must retain new counsel to proceed since Defendant, a corporation, cannot represent itself. Defendant did not advise the Court if it intended to retain substituted counsel and failed to appear at a subsequent status conference and a show cause hearing. The R&R thus recommends entry of default against Defendant. Upon review of the R&R and the record in this case, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
It is ordered that the R&R (dkt. no. 22) is accepted and adopted in full. Plaintiff's Motion for Entry of Default (dkt. no. 23) is denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter default against Defendant. Plaintiff is directed to submit a proposed order for default judgment.