1597 Ashfield Valley Trust et al v. Federal National Mortgage Association System et al

Filing 144

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 143 the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/30/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

1597 ASHFIELD VALLEY TRUST, et al.,

8
9
10
11

Plaintiff(s),

Case No. 2:14-CV-2123 JCM (GWF)
ORDER

v.
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION SYSTEM, et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation that
“Plaintiff 1597 Ashfield Valley Trust’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed and default
judgment on Defendants’ counterclaims be entered against Plaintiff 1597 Ashfield Valley Trust.”
(ECF No. 143 at 2) (emphasis omitted). No timely objections have been filed to the report and
recommendation.
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party fails to object to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

1

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

2

not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

3
4

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine
whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

5

This court holds that the magistrate judge properly recognized that this court informed

6

plaintiff of its need to retain counsel to appear in federal court. (ECF Nos. 141, 143); see also

7

Rowland v. California Men’s Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993).

8

Accordingly,

9

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

10

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley (ECF No. 143) be, and the same hereby are,

11

ADOPTED in their entirety.

12
13
14

DATED May 30, 2017.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-