`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`DISTRICT OF NEVADA
`
`
`MATTHEW MACSWAN,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`RETRIEVAL MASTERS CREDITORS
`BUREAU, INC., et al.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`Case No.: 2:14-cv-02185-RBF-VCF
`
`&
`REPORT
`ACCEPTING
`ORDER
`RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
`JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) of
`
`the Honorable Cam Ferenbach, United States Magistrate Judge, entered May 20, 2015.
`
`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
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`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 (1985).
`
`. . .
`
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:14-cv-02185-RFB-VCF Document 19 Filed 08/03/15 Page 2 of 2
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due by June 6, 2015. No objections
`
`have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this case and concurs with the Magistrate
`
`Judge’s recommendation that an amended judgment be entered in this case, decreeing that
`
`Plaintiff, Matthew MacSwan, shall recover from Defendant, Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau,
`
`Inc., judgment in the amount of $6,000.00, inclusive of all costs and attorney’s fees. (ECF No.
`
`12).
`
`Therefore, the Court has determined that Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation should be
`
`ACCEPTED and ADOPTED to the extent that it is not inconsistent with this opinion.
`
`
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 17) is
`
`ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.
`
`IT IS ORDERED that an amended judgment be entered in this case, decreeing that
`
`Plaintiff, Matthew MacSwan, shall recover from Defendant, Retrieval Masters Creditors Bureau,
`
`Inc., judgment in the amount of $6,000.00, inclusive of all costs and attorneys fees.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court shall serve this Order on the
`
`persons and respective addresses noted in the Report and Recommendation. The Clerk shall enter
`
`judgment accordingly and close the case.
`
`DATED this 3rd day of August, 2015.
`
`
`
`_________________________
`RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
`United States District Court
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
