Gettings v. CEBU Pacific et al

Filing 3

ORDER Adopting 2 Report and Recommendation. It Is Ordered that 1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is Denied. Plaintiff Shall Pay the Filing Fee of $400.00 within 30 Days From the Date of this Order. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 5/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JIMMY GETTINGS,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-767 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
CEBU PACIFIC, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge

14

Hoffman. (Doc. # 2). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has

15

now passed.

16

On April 24, 2015, pro se plaintiff Jimmy Gettings (“plaintiff”) filed a motion to proceed

17

in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff attached a proposed complaint to his motion alleging

18

fraud, consumer fraud, larceny/thief by deception, RICO violations, and conversion against

19

defendants CEBU Pacific and Maganda Travel & Tours, Inc. (“defendants”). (Doc. # 1-2). Upon

20

consideration of plaintiff’s motion, (doc. # 1), Judge Hoffman recommended that the motion be

21

denied. In light of that recommendation, Judge Hoffman did not screen plaintiff’s complaint.

22

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

13
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

The court will therefore deny plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis.

18

Plaintiff must file the $400.00 filing fee within thirty days from the date of this order. Failure to

19

comply with this order may result in dismissal of the instant action.

20

Accordingly,

21

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

22

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman, (doc. # 2), be, and the same hereby are,

23

ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis,

24
25

(doc. # 1), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

26

...

27

...

28

...

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1
2
3
4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay the filing fee of $400.00 within thirty
days from the date of this order.
DATED May 27, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-