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)

Download PDF
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?