Klucka v. Ostrovsky et al

Filing 7

ORDER Adopting in Full 5 Report and Recommendation. It Is Further Ordered that 6 Complaint is Dismissed with Prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within fourteen days of the issuance of this co urts order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if plaintiff fails to file an amended within fourteen days of the issuance of this courts order, the above captioned case will be DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/25/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DAVID KLUCKA,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:15-CV-1062 JCM (VCF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
S.OSTROVSKY, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court are Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation.
(Doc. # 5). Plaintiff Klucka has not filed an objection and the deadline to do so has passed.

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

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

2

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

3

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

4
5

whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, and in light of plaintiff’s

6
7

failure to object, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate’s findings in full.

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

10

Ferenbach’s report and recommendation (doc. # 5) be, and the same here by are, ADOPTED in

11

full.

12
13
14
15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED plaintiffs’ complaint (doc. # 3-1) be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED without prejudice.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall file an amended complaint within fourteen
days of the issuance of this court’s order.

16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that, if plaintiff fails to file an amended within fourteen days

17

of the issuance of this court’s order, the above captioned case will be DISMISSED with prejudice.

18
19
20

DATED June 25, 2015.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-