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.

Telasia, Inc. v. EZ Supply, Inc.

United States District Court, District of Nevada

May 5, 2015

TELASIA, INC., Plaintiff,
v.
EZ SUPPLY, INC., Defendant.

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE GEORGE FOLEY, JR.

MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. (dkt. no. 18) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer and Motion for Default Judgment Against EZ Supply, Inc. (dkt .no. 16). No objection to the R&R has been filed.

This 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). 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 to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Foley’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. (dkt. no. 18) be accepted and adopted in its entirety.

It is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike Answer and Motion for Entry of Default Judgment (dkt. no. 16) is granted.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff is awarded default judgment in the amount of $353, 785.06.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff is awarded pre-judgment interest of $18, 573.72, as of September 23, 2014, with additional interest at the rate of 5.25% through entry of the judgment.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff is awarded attorney and paralegal fees in the amount of $26, 222.50, together with costs of suit in the amount of $618.70.


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.