Duggan v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept et al

Filing 3

ORDER Adopting in it's entirety 2 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiffs complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. Amended Complaint due within 30 days. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/2/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

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

CHRISTOPHER DUGGAN,

9
10
11
12
13

2:14-CV-487 JCM (VCF)

Plaintiff(s),
v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN
POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al.,
Defendant(s).

14
15

ORDER

16

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

17

(Doc. # 2). No objections have been filed even though the deadline for filing objections has passed.

18

After granting pro se plaintiff Christopher Duggan’s motion for leave to proceed in forma

19

pauperis, Magistrate Judge Ferenbach recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to

20

comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). (Doc. # 2).

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

26

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

27

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

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

to which no objection was filed).

11

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

12

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation

13

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

14

in full.

15

Accordingly,

16

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

17

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach (doc. # 2) are ADOPTED in their entirety.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall have thirty (30) days from the entry of this

20

order to file an amended complaint correcting the deficiencies identified in Magistrate Judge

21

Ferenbach’s report and recommendation. Failure to file an amended complaint within this time

22

period may result in dismissal of plaintiff’s claims with prejudice.

23

DATED July 2, 2014.

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

-2-