Toy v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER DISMISSING CASE with Prejudice. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 2 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen are ADOPTED in their entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/23/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - TR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JOSEPH T. TOY,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:14-CV-1720 JCM (PAL)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen.
(Doc. # 2). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has passed.

15

Plaintiff’s complaint alleges claims related to guardianship proceedings concerning his

16

mother against the State of Nevada, Clark County, Judge Norheim, and unnamed court clerks.

17

(Doc. # 1). Plaintiff attempts to assert his mother’s constitutional rights and bring claims against

18

Judge Norheim relating to actions taken in his official capacity. (Doc. # 1).

19

Upon consideration of plaintiff’s complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (doc.

20

# 1), Judge Leen granted plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis, screened plaintiff’s

21

complaint, and recommended that the complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon

22

which relief can be granted. (Doc. # 2).

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

8

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

9

not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no

10

objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may accept the recommendation

11

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

12

magistrate judge’s recommendation 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

15

recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the

16

magistrate judge’s findings in full.

17

Accordingly,

18

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

19
20
21

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Leen, (doc. # 2), are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED with prejudice.

22

The clerk shall close the case.

23

DATED February 23, 2015.

24
25

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-