Fejeran v. United Airlines, Inc.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-cv-00026-MMD-GWF
UNITED AIRLINES, INC., et al.
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
GEORGE FOLEY, JR.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge George Foley, Jr. (ECF No. 77) (“R&R”) regarding the Court’s Order to Show
Cause (ECF No. 74) issued on September 26, 2107. Plaintiff was allowed until
December 22, 2017, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, 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
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.)
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 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.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Foley’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissing this case with prejudice for Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute or to
comply with a court order. Plaintiff has also failed to file a notice of change of address
with the Court as required under LR IA 3-1. Upon reviewing the R&R and the filings in
this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. (ECF No. 77) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that Plaintiff’s complaint (ECF No. 1) is dismissed with prejudice.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court is instructed to close this case and
enter judgment accordingly.
DATED THIS 9th day of January 2018.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?