Love v. State of Nevada
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
WILSON EARL LOVE,
Case No. 2:15-CV-950 JCM (GWF)
STATE OF NEVADA,
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation
(“R&R”), recommending that the matter of Love v. State of Nevada, case number 2:15-cv-00950-
JCM-GWF, be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41-1. (ECF No. 10). No objections have been
filed, and the deadline for filing objections has since passed.
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). Where a party timely objects
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Where a party fails to object, 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).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine
whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
On June 22, 2015, plaintiff filed a motion for appointment of counsel (ECF No. 7), which
the court denied on June 25, 2015 (ECF No. 9). On March 29, 2017, the magistrate judge entered
the instant R&R, recommending that this action be dismissed pursuant to Local Rule 41-1. (ECF
No. 10). To date, no complaint has been filed. Plaintiff has taken no action since June 22, 2015,
and has not filed an objection to the R&R.
Local Rule 41-1 provides that “[a]ll civil actions that have been pending in this court for
more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice, be
dismissed for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or pro
se party.” LR 41-1. Further, it is well established that the district courts have the inherent power
to control their dockets. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir. 2010)
(quoting Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir. 1998)).
Upon reviewing the recommendation and the record, the court finds that good cause
appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge Foley’s
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.
The clerk shall close the case.
DATED April 17, 2017.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?