Toy v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 4

ORDER Adopting 2 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED. The clerk is instructed to close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/18/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

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-1721 JCM (PAL)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

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

14

# 2). Pro se plaintiff Joseph T. Toy has not filed an objection and the deadline to do so has 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. 2003)

27

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

28

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

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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 is one of four applications

6

and attached complaints plaintiff filed between October 16 and October 17, 2014, related to his

7

mother’s treatment by state and local authorities. (Doc. # 1). The court granted plaintiff’s request

8

to proceed in forma pauperis and screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

9

The magistrate judge ordered plaintiff’s complaint be filed, and recommended plaintiff’s

10

complaint be dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The magistrate

11

judge denied plaintiff leave to amend his complaint because plaintiff’s claims cannot be cured by

12

the allegation of additional facts.

13
14

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.

15

Accordingly,

16

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

17
18
19
20
21
22

report and recommendation (doc. # 2) be, and the same hereby, is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint DISMISSED.
instructed to close the case.
DATED February 18, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

The clerk is

-2-