Smith v. Eisenberg et al

Filing 26

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that 19 Magistrate Judge Hoffman's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter of Smith v. Eisenberg et al., case number 2:16-cv-00618-JCM-CWH, be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall close the case accordingly. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DONOVAN SMITH,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:16-CV-618 JCM (CWH)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
SAMANTHA EISENBERG, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation.

14

(ECF No. 19). No objections have been filed and the deadline for filing objections has since

15

passed.

16

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

17

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

18

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

19

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

20

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

21

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

22

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

23

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

24

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

25

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

26

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

27

objections were made).

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1
2

Plaintiff has not objected to the report and recommendation. Nevertheless, the court
engages in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings.

3

The magistrate judge recommends that the court close this action without prejudice

4

because plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint within the thirty-day deadline set forth

5

in the court’s April 19, 2017, order. (ECF No. 19). Upon reviewing the underlying record, the

6

court finds good cause to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation.

7

Accordingly,

8

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge

9

Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 19) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in

10
11
12

its entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the matter of Smith v. Eisenberg et al., case number
2:16-cv-00618-JCM-CWH, be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice.

13

The clerk shall close the case accordingly.

14

DATED January 28, 2019.

15
16

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

-2-