Luckett v. Nevada Supreme Court et al

Filing 4

ORDER Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Leen's 3 Report and Recommendation. Plaintiff's 1 -1 Complaint is Dismissed without prejudice to his seeking relief with the proper court. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/23/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JOHN LUCKETT,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-169 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
NEVADA SUPREME COURT, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe.
(Doc. # 3). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has passed.

15

In this case, plaintiff seeks review of certain Nevada state court decisions, on the grounds

16

that they violated the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. # 1). Upon consideration of plaintiff’s

17

complaint and motion to proceed in forma pauperis, (doc. # 1), Judge Koppe granted plaintiff’s

18

motion to proceed in forma pauperis, screened plaintiff’s complaint, and recommended that the

19

complaint be dismissed without prejudice to his seeking relief with the proper court. (Doc. # 3).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

9

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

10

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

Upon reviewing the

11

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

12

magistrate judge’s findings in full.

13

Accordingly,

14

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

15
16
17

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 without prejudice to his seeking relief with the proper court.

18

The clerk shall close the case.

19

DATED February 23, 2015.

20
21

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-