Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Woods v. Maximus Coffee Group

United States District Court, D. Nevada

January 29, 2015

IAN A. WOODS et al, Plaintiff,
v.
MAXIMUS COFFEE GROUP et al, Defendants

Ian A. Woods, Plaintiff, Pro se, Indian Springs, NV.

Jerrad Henke, Plaintiff, Pro se, Indian Springs, NV.

Clifford Stubbs, Plaintiff, Pro se, Indian Springs, NV.

ORDER ACCEPTING IN PART REPORT & RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II., United States District Court Judge.

Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) of the Honorable V. Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered October 7, 2014.

A district 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). A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is required to " make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct " any review, " de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (1985).

Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by October 24, 2014. No objections have been filed. The Plaintiffs did file an Amended Complaint on October 29, 2014.

The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation(s). These recommendations, however, must be placed in the context of the current record, since the Plaintiffs have filed an Amended Complaint in apparent response to the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in part.

IT IS FURTHER HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs' first Complaint is DISMISSED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.