Anderson v. Bank of America NA Melon et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BARBARA K. ANDERSON,
Case No. 2:17-cv-00103-MMD-CWH
BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. MELON, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 8) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s application to
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) and pro se complaint. Plaintiff had until May 5,
2017, to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 8.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s R&R to dismiss the complaint
with leave to amend. Upon reviewing the R&R and complaint, this Court finds good
cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 8) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff
to address the deficiencies identified in the R&R (ECF No. 8 at 3-4). Plaintiff will have
thirty days (30) after entry of this order to file a proposed amended complaint, which will
be subject to screening. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of
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.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?