Greco et al v. Lane et al
Filing
39
ORDER accepting and adopting ECF No. 38 R&R; denying ECF Nos. 24 , 37 IFP applications; dismissing without prejudice this action; overruling as moot ECF No. 36 R&R; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/30/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
ANTHONY GRECO, et al.,
Case No. 2:15-cv-001370-MMD-PAL
Plaintiffs,
11
v.
12
13
NYE COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE
ROBERT LAKE, et al.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE
JUDGE PEGGY A. LEEN
Defendants.
14
15
16
Before the Court is the Amended Report and Recommendation of United States
17
Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen (ECF No. 38) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to
18
Plaintiff Anthony Greco’s third application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP
19
Application”) (ECF No. 37). (ECF No. 38.) Plaintiff filed the third IFP Application after the
20
Magistrate Judge issued the initial Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 36)
21
addressing his second IFP Application. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff had until November 26,
22
2016, to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 38.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been
23
filed.
24
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
25
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
26
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
27
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
28
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
1
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
2
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
3
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
5
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
6
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
7
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
8
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
9
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
10
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
11
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
12
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
13
which no objection was filed).
14
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
15
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Leen’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and
16
the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s
17
Recommendation in full.
It
18
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
19
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen (ECF No. 38) is accepted and
20
adopted in its entirety.
21
It is further ordered that Plaintiff Applications to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (ECF
22
Nos. 24, 37) are denied and this action is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff’s ability
23
to commence a new action in which he either pays the appropriate filing fee in full or
24
submits a sufficient application to proceed in forma pauperis.
It
25
is
further
ordered
that
the
Magistrate
Judge’s
initial
Report
and
26
Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is overruled as moot by the Magistrate Judge’s issuance
27
of the R&R.
28
///
2
1
2
The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.
DATED THIS 30th day of December 2016.
3
4
5
MIRANDA M. DU
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
3
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?