Fejeran v. United Airlines, Inc.

Filing 79

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE GEORGE FOLEY, JR. ECF No. 77 ; Plaintiff's complaint ECF No. 1 is dismissed with prejudice; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ANTHONY FEJERAN,

Case No. 2:16-cv-00026-MMD-GWF
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.

12
Defendants.
13
14

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

15

Judge George Foley, Jr. (ECF No. 77) (“R&R”) regarding the Court’s Order to Show

16

Cause (ECF No. 74) issued on September 26, 2107. Plaintiff was allowed until

17

December 22, 2017, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been

18

filed.1

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1The

R&R (ECF No. 77) and all mailings since September 20, 2017, that were
mailed to Plaintiff have been returned as undeliverable. (See ECF Nos. 72, 75, 76, 78.)

1

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

2

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

3

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

4

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

5

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

6

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

7

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

8

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

9

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

10

which no objection was filed).

11

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

12

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Foley’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

13

recommends dismissing this case with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to

14

comply with a court order. Plaintiff has also failed to file a notice of change of address

15

with the Court as required under LR IA 3-1. Upon reviewing the R&R and the filings in

16

this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

17

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

18

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. (ECF No. 77) is accepted and

19

adopted in its entirety.

20

It is ordered that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice.

21

It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case and

22
23

enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 9th day of January 2018.

24
25
26

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2