Belcher et al v. Baltzley et al

Filing 9

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 7 Magistrate Judge Koppe's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 3 plaintiff Rudd's application to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 4 plaintiff Tolentino's application to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that 5 plaintiff Santos's application to proceed in forma pauperis be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiffs Rudd, Tolentino, and Santos be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The clerk shall remove plaintiffs Rudd, Tolentino, and Santos from the instant action. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

RHENETTA BELCHER, et al.,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-1675 JCM (NJK)
Plaintiff(s),

ORDER

v.
AMBER BALTZLEY, et al,,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Koppe’s report and recommendation

14

(“R&R”). (ECF No. 7). 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’s R&R recommends that the court deny the applications to

2

proceed in forma pauperis submitted by plaintiffs Rudd, Tolentino, and Santos. (ECF No. 7). The

3

R&R further recommends that the court dismiss plaintiffs Rudd, Tolentino, and Santos from the

4

action because “Plaintiffs were not properly joined under [Rule] 20.”1 Id.

5

Plaintiffs have not objected to the report and recommendation. Nevertheless, this court

6

finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the

7

recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying

8

briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings.

9

Accordingly,

10

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

11

Koppe’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 7) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

12

entirety.

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Rudd’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 3) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Tolentino’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 4) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Santos’s application to proceed in forma
pauperis (ECF No. 5) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims brought by plaintiffs Rudd, Tolentino, and
Santos be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.

21

The clerk shall remove plaintiffs Rudd, Tolentino, and Santos from the instant action.

22

DATED February 2, 2018.

23

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

The R&R holds in the alternative that plaintiffs, who represent themselves pro se, did not
properly bring their claims as a class action suit. (ECF No. 7).
-2-