Archuleta et al v. Corrections Corporation of America

Filing 80

ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 78 Report and Recommendation, dismissing with prejudice Dickens' claims alleged in ECF No. 1 Complaint. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/23/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

LEEANN E. ARCHULETA, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

7
v.
8
9

CORRECTIONS CORPORATION OF
AMERICA,

10

Case No. 2:15-cv-01608-MMD-VCF
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CAM FERENBACH

Defendant.

11
12

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

13

Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 78) (“R&R”) regarding Plaintiff Michael B. Dickens’

14

(“Dickens”) claims in this matter. Dickens had until April 16, 2019, to file an objection. (ECF

15

No. 78.) To date, Dickens has not filed an objection to the R&R. The Court accepts and

16

adopts the R&R in full.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may

4

accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226

5

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

6

was filed).

7

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

8

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

9

and underlying documents, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the R&R in

10

full.

11

In the R&R, Judge Ferenbach recommends that the Court dismiss Dickens’

12

complaint with prejudice for failure to obey the Court’s order and failure to prosecute this

13

case under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). (ECF No. 78 at 2.) First, Dickens failed to comply with a

14

court order that he either retain counsel or file a notice of appearing in pro se by February

15

25, 2019. (ECF No. 78 at 1; ECF No. 69 at 2; see generally docket.) Judge Ferenbach

16

notes that Dickens has also failed to comply with the Court’s order that he appeared at a

17

show cause hearing regarding Defendants’ request that the Court dismiss him from this

18

case with prejudice. (ECF No. 78 at 1; see also ECF Nos. 71, 72, 74.) Dickens’ failure to

19

appear occurred after he filed a letter on March 21, 2019, stating that he does not wish to

20

continue prosecuting this case. (ECF No. 73.) Based on this record, the Court accepts and

21

adopts Judge Ferenbach’s recommendation that Dickens’ claims be dismissed. See, e.g.,

22

Thompson v. Hous. Auth. of City of L. A., 782 F.2d 829, 831 (9th Cir. 1986) (recognizing

23

that district courts have the inherent power to control their dockets and “[i]n the exercise

24

of that power, they may impose sanctions including, where appropriate . . . dismissal” of a

25

case); Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987) (dismissing case for

26

failure to comply with court order); Link v. Wabash R. Co., 370 U.S. 633 (1962) (affirming

27

district court’s dismissal under Rule 41(b) after plaintiff's attorney failed to appear at a

28

pretrial conference).
2

1

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation

2

of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 78) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

3

It is further ordered that Dickens’ claims alleged in the complaint (ECF No. 1) are

4
5

dismissed with prejudice.
DATED THIS 23rd day of April 2019.

6
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3