Rosenberg v. Merck & Company, Inc. et al

Filing 14

ORDER Adopting in its entirety 13 Report and Recommendation. The complaint is dismissed. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/25/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

ROBERT ROSENBERG,

9

2:12-CV-1759 JCM (NJK)

Plaintiff(s),

10
11

v.
MERCK & COMPANY, INC., et al.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14
15

ORDER

16

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation that

17

plaintiff Robert Rosenberg’s complaint be dismissed unless he files a certificate of interested parties

18

by April 11, 2013. (Doc. # 13). To date, plaintiff has neither filed objections to the report and

19

recommendation nor a certificate of interested parties.

20

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Where a party timely

22

objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de

23

novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is

24

made.” Id.

25

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all

26

. . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

27

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-

2

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district

3

court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objects were made); see also

4

Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s

5

decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

6

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s

7

recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g.,

8

Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation

9

to which no object was filed).

10

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine

11

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon review of the docket, the court

12

takes notice of plaintiff’s repeated failure to follow court orders. (See docs. # 6,12). Based on this

13

repeated willful refusal to comply with multiple court orders, this court finds good cause to adopt

14

the magistrate judge’s findings in full.

15

Accordingly,

16

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

17

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe dismissing plaintiff’s complaint (doc. # 13) be, and the

18

same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.

19
20
21

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Robert Rosenberg’s complaint (doc. # 1) be, and
the same hereby is, DISMISSED.
DATED April 25, 2013.

22
23
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-