Bahrampour v. United States of America et al

Filing 5

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach's 3 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/20/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

AFSHIN BAHRAMPOUR,

Case No. 2:15-cv-01194-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND
BARACK OBAMA, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CAM FERENBACH

Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

16

Judge Cam Ferenbach (dkt. no. 3) (“R&R”), submitted on July 8, 2015, relating to

17

Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis, Complaint and Supplement . (Dkt.

18

no. 1). The R&R (dkt. no. 3) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable.

19

(Dk. no. 4.) It was remailed to plaintiff at 413 N 13 th Ave, LV, NV 89102 on July 23, 2015.

20

No objection to the R&R has been filed.

21

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

22

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

23

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

24

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

25

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

26

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

27

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

4

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

5

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

6

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

7

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

8

the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at

9

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no

10

objection was filed).

11

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

12

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach’s R&R. Upon reviewing

13

the R&R and underlying filings, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate

14

Judge’s R&R in full.

15
16

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the R&R of Magistrate Judge
Cam Ferenbach (dkt. no.3) be accepted and adopted in its entirety.

17

It is further ordered that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

18

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

19

DATED THIS 20th day of August 2015.

20
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2