Love v. State of Nevada

Filing 12

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 10 Magistrate Judge Foley's R&R be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter of Love v. State of Nevada, case number 2:15-cv-00950-JCM-GWF, be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/17/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

WILSON EARL LOVE,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-950 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
STATE OF NEVADA,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation

14

(“R&R”), recommending that the matter of Love v. State of Nevada, case number 2:15-cv-00950-

15

JCM-GWF, be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41-1. (ECF No. 10). No objections have been

16

filed, and the deadline for filing objections has since passed.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

objections were made).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2

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

3

On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 7), which

4

the court denied on June 25, 2015 (ECF No. 9). On March 29, 2017, the magistrate judge entered

5

the instant R&R, recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41-1. (ECF

6

No. 10). To date, no complaint has been filed. Plaintiff has taken no action since June 22, 2015,

7

and has not filed an objection to the R&R.

8

Local Rule 41-1 provides that “[a]ll civil actions that have been pending in this court for

9

more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be

10

dismissed for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro

11

se party.” LR 41-1. Further, it is well established that the district courts have the inherent power

12

to control their dockets. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010)

13

(quoting Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)).

14

Upon reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court finds that good cause

15

appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings.

16

Accordingly,

17

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

18
19
20

R&R (ECF No. 10) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter of Love v. State of Nevada, case number 2:15cv-00950-JCM-GWF, be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED.

21

The clerk shall close the case.

22

DATED April 17, 2017.

23
24

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-2-