Mize v. Clark County Justice Court

Filing 7

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge Foley's 6 Report and Recommendation. The clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 10/16/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JAMES KENNETH MIZE,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:14-CV-1114 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
CLARK COUNTY JUSTICE COURT,

11

Defendant(s).

12

Presently before the court are Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation.

13

(Doc. # 6). Plaintiff James Kenneth Mize has not filed an objection and the deadline to do so has

14

passed.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district

28

courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may accept the

2

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

3

without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

4

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

5

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. This matter commenced on July

6

8, 2014, with the filing of plaintiff’s complaint and motion/application to proceed in forma

7

pauperis. (Doc. # 1). The court denied plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis due to

8

allegations indicating plaintiff’s ability to pay the fees associated with the cost of bringing his

9

action. (See Doc. # 2). Plaintiff filed an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis,

10

which the court similarly denied for failing to include a signed financial certificate by an

11

authorized officer under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(2) and Local Rule 1-2. The court ordered plaintiff

12

to file an amended application to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee by August

13

25, 2014, and cautioned plaintiff that failure to do so might result in the court dismissing his

14

action.

15

Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) allows the court discretion to dismiss an action if the

16

plaintiff fails to prosecute or to comply with the rules or a court order. The court’s July 25, 2014

17

order (doc. # 5) granted plaintiff until August 25, 2014 to file an amended application to proceed

18

in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. Plaintiff has done neither. The complaint has,

19

therefore, neither been screened nor filed with the court

20
21

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.

22

Accordingly,

23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge

24

Foley’s report and recommendation (doc. # 6) be ADOPTED.

25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk is instructed to close the case.

26

DATED October 16, 2014.

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

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-