Shepard v. Marathon Staffing, Inc.

Filing 6

ORDER adopting 5 Magistrate Judge Leen's Report and Recommendations. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DKJ)

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

TANYA C. SHEPARD,

9
10
11

2:13-CV-2261 JCM (PAL)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
MARATHON STAFFING, INC.,

12
Defendant(s).

13
14

ORDER

15

Presently before the court are Magistrate Judge Leen’s report and recommendation. (Doc.

16

# 5). Plaintiff Tanya Shepard has not filed an objection and the deadline in which to do so has

17

expired.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

to which no objection was filed).

8

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

9

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. The magistrate judge screened the

10

complaint, determined that it failed to state a claim, and gave plaintiff thirty days in which to file an

11

amended complaint. Plaintiff did not file an amended complaint, did not request an extension of

12

time, and has otherwise not participated in the prosecution of her lawsuit. In light of her failure to

13

participate, the magistrate judge recommends that the complaint be dismissed.

14
15

Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, and in light of plaintiff’s failure
to object, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate’s findings in full.

16

Accordingly,

17

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge Leen’s

18
19
20
21

report and recommendation (doc. # 5) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED without prejudice. The
clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
DATED July 30, 2014.

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

-2-