Case Information
*1 Case 2:18-cv-02079-GMN-EJY Document 13 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 DISTRICT OF NEVADA PENN ENGINEERING AND )
MANUFACTURING CORP., ) ) Case No.: 2:18-cv-02079-GMN-EJY
Plaintiff, ) vs. ) ORDER )
DONGGUAN ZHENGMAO PRECISION )
HARDWARE FACTORY, ) )
Defendant. ) )
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Elayna J. Youchah, (ECF No. 12), which recommends denying without prejudice Plaintiff Penn Engineering and Manufacturing Corporation’s (“Plaintiff’s”) Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 11).
A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id . The 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); D. Nev. IB 3-2(b). 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 , e.g. , United States v. Reyna–Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003).
Page 1 of 2 *2 Case 2:18-cv-02079-GMN-EJY Document 13 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2 1 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so, January 22, 2021, has passed. ( See Report and Recommendation, ECF No. 12).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 12), is ACCEPTED AND ADOPTED in full .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction, (ECF No. 11), is DENIED without prejudice .
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be given one additional thirty (30) day opportunity to serve Defendant Dongguan Zhengmao Precision Hardware Factory (“Defendant”) in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(f) and (h)(2).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff be given leave to refile its Motion for Default Judgment and Permanent Injunction once it demonstrates to the Court that service of process upon Defendant was properly attempted or, if achieved, no responsive pleading was timely filed.
DATED this _____ day of February, 2021.
___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Page 2 of 2