Banks v. Southern Nevada Regional Housing Authority, et al

Filing 48

ORDER Adopting 43 Report and Recommendation. FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint, (ECF No. 1 ) be DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 11/7/16. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

ALICE BANKS,

8
9
10
11
12
13
14

Case No. 2:15-CV-1541 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL
HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al.,
Defendant(s).
Presently before this court are Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation. (ECF
No. 43). Plaintiff Alice Banks did not file a timely objection to the report and recommendation.

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). If a party fails to object to a

17

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any

18

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

19

149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review

20
21

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

22

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

23

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

24

not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

25
26

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine
whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

27

This court finds that the magistrate judge properly reasoned that plaintiff’s complaint be

28

dismissed with prejudice. (ECF No. 43). Plaintiff has not engaged with the case in over ten

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

months, failing to appear for scheduled hearings and the October 26, 2016, calendar call. (ECF

2

Nos. 36, 42); see Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Additionally, she has failed to inform the court of her

3

change of address or other contact information. See LR IA 3-1 (“Failure to comply with this rule

4

may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed

5
6
7
8
9
10

appropriate by the court.”).
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and
recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley (ECF No. 43) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED
in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s complaint, (ECF No. 1) be DISMISSED with
prejudice.

11

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

12

DATED November 7, 2016.

13

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-