From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Apr 30, 2020
Case No.: 2:11-cv-02116-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2020)

Summary

approving minor's compromise and ordering that funds "shall be deposited into a blocked trust account with proof of such deposit provided to the Court within 60 days of this Order"

Summary of this case from V.G.M. v. City of Salinas

Opinion

Case No.: 2:11-cv-02116-GMN-NJK

04-30-2020

ESTATE OF FERNANDO SAUCEDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, (ECF No. 181), which recommends that the Renewed Petition for Compromise of Minors' Claims, (ECF No. 174), be granted and funds be ordered "deposited into a blocked trust account with proof of such deposit provided to the Court within 60 days of the order resolving the motion." The parties had until April 29, 2020, to file any objection to the R&R. (Min. Order, ECF No. 181).

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. Local 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. Local R. 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).

Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 181), is ADOPTED in full. The Renewed Petition for Compromise of Minors' Claims, (ECF No. 174), is GRANTED. The funds addressed in the R&R shall be deposited into a blocked trust account with proof of such deposit provided to the Court within 60 days of this Order.

DATED this 30 day of April, 2020.

/s/_________

Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge

United States District Court


Summaries of

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Apr 30, 2020
Case No.: 2:11-cv-02116-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2020)

approving minor's compromise and ordering that funds "shall be deposited into a blocked trust account with proof of such deposit provided to the Court within 60 days of this Order"

Summary of this case from V.G.M. v. City of Salinas

approving minor's compromise and ordering that funds "shall be deposited into a blocked trust account with proof of such deposit provided to the Court within 60 days of this Order"

Summary of this case from Williams v. Cnty. of Monterey
Case details for

Estate of Sauceda v. City of North Las Vegas

Case Details

Full title:ESTATE OF FERNANDO SAUCEDA, et al., Plaintiffs, v. CITY OF NORTH LAS…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Apr 30, 2020

Citations

Case No.: 2:11-cv-02116-GMN-NJK (D. Nev. Apr. 30, 2020)

Citing Cases

Woloszynska v. Netflix, Inc.

(“Counsel shall, within 45 days after approval of the minors' compromise, file with the Clerk of Court proof…

Williams v. Cnty. of Monterey

Upon concluding that a minor's net recovery is fair and reasonable, district courts within the Ninth Circuit…