Constantino et al v. Kent et al
Filing
5
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 4 Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' complaint, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED without prejudice. The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 6/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ADR)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
MERCY S. CONSTANTINO, et al.,
8
9
10
Case No. 2:17-CV-1331 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),
ORDER
v.
JEANNE M. KENT, et al.,
11
Defendant(s).
12
13
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation
14
(“R&R”). (ECF No. 4). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has
15
since passed.
16
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
17
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects
18
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
19
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
20
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
21
Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at
22
all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
23
(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
24
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
25
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
26
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
27
objections were made).
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
1
Magistrate Judge Koppe recommends that plaintiffs Mercy Constantino and Robin
2
Fernandez’s complaint be dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with a prior court
3
order in the case.1 (ECF No. 4).
4
Plaintiffs have not objected to the report and recommendation. Nevertheless, this court
5
finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the
6
recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying
7
briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings.
8
Accordingly,
9
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge
10
Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its
11
entirety.
12
13
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ complaint, and the same hereby is,
DISMISSED without prejudice.
14
The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.
15
DATED June 6, 2018.
16
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
1
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
On December 21, 2017, Judge Koppe ordered plaintiffs to either pay the filing fee or file
separate applications to proceed in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiffs have not paid the
filing fee or submitted any filings to this court since Judge Koppe issued that order.
-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?