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)

Download PDF
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

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?