SMith v. Connell et al

Filing 33

ORDER that 32 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

TONY SMITH,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:12-CV-2140 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
STEPHEN CONNELL, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley.
(Doc. # 32). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has passed.

15

This case arises from a civil rights complaint filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (Doc. #

16

1-1). On March 17, 2014, Judge Foley granted plaintiff leave to amend his complaint. (Doc. #

17

28). Judge Foley instructed plaintiff to file his amended complaint by April 16, 2014. (Doc. #

18

28).

19

On April 1, 2014, plaintiff filed a motion for an extension of time, (doc. # 30), which Judge

20

Foley denied on April 25, 2014, (doc. # 31). Since that denial, plaintiff has made no further filing.

21

Accordingly, Judge Foley recommends that the case be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41-1.

22

(Doc. # 32).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

4

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

5

States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

6

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

7

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

8

(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are

9

not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no

10

objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation

11

without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a

12

magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

13

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

14

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

Upon reviewing the

15

recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the

16

magistrate judge’s findings in full.

17

Accordingly,

18

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

19
20
21

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley, (doc. # 32), are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED
with prejudice.

22

The clerk shall close the case.

23

DATED February 23, 2015.

24
25

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-