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)

Download PDF
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

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?