Alfred v. Gillispie et al

Filing 20

ORDER Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's 10 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that count two of plaintiff William Alfred's 9 amended complaint is Stricken. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/13/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

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

WILLIAM LLOYD ALFRED, JR.,

9
10
11

2:13-CV-519 JCM (VCF)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
DOUG E. GILLESPIE, et al.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach.

16

(Doc. # 10). No objections have been filed even though the deadline date for filing objections has

17

passed.

18

Plaintiff has filed an amended complaint in this action (doc. # 8) which contains a claim

19

identical to a prior version that was dismissed by the court. Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommends

20

that this claim be stricken from the complaint, rather than forcing the plaintiff to file an additional

21

amended complaint. (Doc. # 10).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

27

...

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 all

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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 recommendation

15

and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings

16

in full.

17

Accordingly,

18

IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of

19
20
21
22

Magistrate Judge Ferenbach (doc. # 10) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that count two of plaintiff William Alfred’s complaint (doc.
# 9) is STRICKEN.
DATED March 13, 2014.

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

-2-