Wood v. Schmitt
Filing
10
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 3 Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's Title VII claim be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 3/23/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
RODNEY ALLEN WOOD,
8
9
10
Case No. 2:16-CV-358 JCM (GWF)
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
TOMMY BLITSCH, et al.,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation
14
(“R&R”). (ECF No. 3). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has
15
since passed.
16
Magistrate Judge Foley recommends that plaintiff’s claim against defendants based on
17
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act be dismissed with prejudice because Title VII does not prohibit
18
discrimination based on disability. (ECF No. 3 at 3).
19
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
20
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects
21
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
22
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
23
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
24
Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at
25
all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
26
(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
27
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
28
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
2
objections were made).
3
Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine
4
whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.
Upon reviewing the
5
recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to ADOPT the
6
magistrate judge’s findings.
7
Moreover, Local Rule 41-1 provides that “[a]ll civil actions that have been pending in this
8
court for more than 270 days without any proceeding of record having been taken may, after notice,
9
be dismissed for want of prosecution by the court sua sponte or on the motion of an attorney or
10
pro se party.” LR 41-1. Further, it is well established that the district courts have the inherent
11
power to control their dockets. Ready Transp., Inc. v. AAR Mfg., Inc., 627 F.3d 402, 404 (9th Cir.
12
2010) (quoting Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry. v. Hercules, Inc., 146 F.3d 1071, 1074 (9th Cir.
13
1998)). “Indeed, the inherent powers permit a district court to go as far as to dismiss entire actions
14
to rein in abusive conduct.” Id. (citing Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Ry., 146 F.3d at 1074 as
15
“recognizing inherent power to dismiss an action to sanction abusive conduct such as judge-
16
shopping or failure to prosecute”).
17
On January 10, 2017, plaintiff was notified that “[i]f no action is taken in this case within
18
30 days, the [c]ourt will enter an order of dismissal for want of prosecution” and that the LR 41-1
19
dismissal deadline is set for February 9, 2017. (ECF No. 9). To date, no action has been taken in
20
the instant matter. Therefore, the instant action will be dismissed without prejudice for want of
21
prosecution.
22
Accordingly,
23
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge
24
Foley’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 3) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its
25
entirety.
26
27
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s Title VII claim be, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED with prejudice.
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-2-
1
2
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED
without prejudice.
3
The clerk shall close the case.
4
DATED March 23, 2017.
5
6
__________________________________________
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
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
-3-
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?