Filing 9

ORDER that the Report and Recommendations ECF No. 7 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint ECF No. 8 is dismissed with leave to amend. Amended Complaint is due by 2/13/2017. Plaintiff's failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of the case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 01/12/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 10 *** 11 RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Case No. 2:16-cv-02701-MMD-VCF Plaintiff, 12 v. 13 14 15 SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAM FERENBACH Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 18 Judge Cam Ferenbach (“R&R”) that Plaintiff’s pro se complaint be dismissed with leave 19 to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff had until December 22, 2016 to file an objection. (Id.) 20 To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 26 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 27 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 28 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 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 Ferenbach’s R&R. Upon reviewing the 13 R&R and the Complaint, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate 14 Judge’s R&R in full. 15 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 16 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 7) is accepted and 17 adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 8) is dismissed with leave to 18 amend. 19 If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint he is advised that an amended 20 complaint supersedes the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be 21 complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 22 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that “[t]he fact that a party was named in the original 23 complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original”); see also Lacey 24 v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed 25 with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent 26 amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff’s amended complaint must 27 contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in 28 this lawsuit. 2 1 If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must do so by Feburary 2 13, 2017. Plaintiff’s failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of 3 this action with prejudice. 4 DATED THIS 12th day of January 2017. 5 6 MIRANDA M. DU 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 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?