Bank v. Nevada Supreme Court et al

Filing 11

ORDER Adopting 8 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/14/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

STEVE J. BANK,

Case No. 2:14-cv-01482-MMD-NJK
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12

NEVADA SUPREME COURT, et al.,
Defendants.

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NANCY J. KOPPE

13
14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

15

Judge Nancy J. Koppe (dkt. no. 8) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s failure to comply with

16

Local Special Rule (“LSR”) 2-2 requiring plaintiff to change his address. No objection to

17

the R&R has been filed.

18

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

19

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

20

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

21

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

22

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

23

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

24

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

26

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

27

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

28

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

1

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

2

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

3

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

4

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

5

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

6

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

7

which no objection was filed).

8

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

9

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Koppe’s R&R. The R&R recommended

10

dismissal of this action with prejudice, based upon Plaintiff’s failure to notify the Court of

11

his change of address pursuant to LSR 2-2. The R&R indicated that the Clerk’s office

12

attempted twice to mail notice of the Court’s Order (dkt. no. 4) to plaintiff. Those two

13

notices, as well as the R&R, that were mailed to Plaintiff were returned as undeliverable.

14

(See dkt. nos. 6, 9 and 10.) Additionally, Plaintiff violated the Court’s Order that he show

15

cause in writing why the Court should not recommend dismissal. (The Clerk’s Office

16

mailed notice of the Order to Show Cause (dkt. no. 7) to Plaintiff at his last-known

17

address. To date, that notice has not been returned as undeliverable.) Upon reviewing

18

the R&R and records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate

19

Judge’s R&R in full.

20

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

21

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe (dkt. no. 8) is accepted and

22

adopted in its entirety.

23

It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

24

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

25

DATED THIS 14th day of May 2015.

26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2