Anderson v. Bank of America NA Melon et al

Filing 10

ORDER accepting and adopting Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8 ) : Amended Complaint due by 6/7/2017. Plaintiff's proposed temporary restraining order to be heard on order shortening time (ECF No. 7 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BARBARA K. ANDERSON,

Case No. 2:17-cv-00103-MMD-CWH
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. MELON, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR.

12
Defendants.
13
14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

15

Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 8) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s application to

16

proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) and pro se complaint. Plaintiff had until May 5,

17

2017, to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 8.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been

18

filed.

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

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

28

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

1

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

2

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

3

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

4

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

5

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

6

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

7

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

8

which no objection was filed).

9

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

10

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s R&R to dismiss the complaint

11

with leave to amend. Upon reviewing the R&R and complaint, this Court finds good

12

cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

13

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

14

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 8) is accepted and

15

adopted in its entirety.

16

It is ordered that the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff

17

to address the deficiencies identified in the R&R (ECF No. 8 at 3-4). Plaintiff will have

18

thirty days (30) after entry of this order to file a proposed amended complaint, which will

19

be subject to screening. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of

20

this action.

21
22
23

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s proposed temporary restraining order to be
heard on order shortening time (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 8th day of May 2017.

24
25
26

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2