Thomas Sr v. Kang and Associates et al

Filing 14

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 7 the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/20/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9

ALDEN A. THOMAS, SR.,

Case No. 2:16-cv-02573-JCM-NJK
Plaintiff,

10
11
12

ORDER

v.
KANG AND ASSOCIATES, et al.,
Defendant.

13
14

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation to

15

dismiss petitioner’s motion of registration of judgment from another district with prejudice and to

16

deny the application to proceed in forma pauperis as moot. (ECF No. 7). Petitioner filed a timely

17

objection. (ECF No. 8).

18

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

19

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party fails to object to a

20

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any

21

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

22

149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

27

(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are

28

not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

1

As plaintiff has filed an objection to the report and recommendation, this court finds it

2

appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of

3

the magistrate judge. (ECF No. 7). Petitioner’s objections do not address—and thus cannot

4

overcome—the fact that the judgment he attempts to register appears to be from a court that does

5

not exist. (ECF No. 2-2). Indeed, the magistrate judge accurately and appropriately cites to

6

Daniels-Hall v. National Education Association, Federal Rule of Evidence 201, and the website

7

for the California court system in determining that there is no such thing as an “adjudicator court”

8

in California. 629 F.3d 992, 998–99 (9th Cir. 2010); see also (ECF Nos. 2-2, 7). Therefore, this

9

court agrees with the magistrate judge’s analysis and conclusion.

10

Accordingly,

11

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and

12

recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe (ECF No. 7) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED

13

in their entirety.

14

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

15

DATED THIS 20th day of January, 2017.

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

JAMES C. MAHAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE