Chatman v. Las Vegas Metro Police Dept. et al

Filing 8

ORDER Adopting Magistrate Judge Koppe's 6 Report and Recommendation. The clerk shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

LEONARD L. CHATMAN,

8
9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-CV-14 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
LAS VEGAS METRO POLICE DEPT.,
et al.,
Defendant(s).

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation that
plaintiff Leonard Chatman’s complaint against the Las Vegas Metro Police Department be denied.
(ECF No. 6). No objections have been filed to the report and recommendation.
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party fails to object to a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any
review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140,
149 (1985).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)
(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are
not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

Here, the magistrate judge analyzed whether it is proper to dismiss the plaintiff’s

1
2

complaint. (ECF No. 6).

3

First, the court has not received an amended complaint or any request to extend the deadline

4

for filing one. (Id.). The magistrate judge dismissed the complaint with leave to amend. (ECF

5

No. 2).

6
7

Second, the case is subject to dismissal because the plaintiff failed to update his address
with the court. (ECF Nos. 4, 5, 6); see also Local Special Rule 2-2.

8

In sum, Magistrate Judge Koppe concluded that the case be dismissed without prejudice.

9

(ECF No. 6). As mentioned, no timely objections have been filed in response to this report and

10

recommendation.

Therefore, this court will adopt Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and

11

recommendation. See Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d at 1121.

12

Accordingly,

13

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

14

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe (ECF No. 6) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED

15

in their entirety.

16

The clerk shall close the case and enter judgment accordingly.

17

DATED June 14, 2017.

18
19

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-