Kiles v. Machnich et al

Filing 6

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 4 Magistrate Judge Hoffman's report and recommendation, be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, 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 8/29/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

DEON M. KILES,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-1695 JCM (CWH)
ORDER

v.
TEGAN MACHNICH, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman’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

I.

Facts

17

On June 16, 2017, plaintiff filed its complaint along with an application to proceed in forma

18

pauperis. (ECF No. 1). On June 23, 2017, Magistrate Judge Hoffman denied plaintiff’s request

19

to proceed in forma pauperis and gave plaintiff thirty days to either file a renewed application to

20

proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 3). Plaintiff did not pay the filing

21

fee or submit a renewed application. On July 27, 2017, Magistrate Judge Hoffman issued the

22

instant R&R. (ECF No. 4).

23

II.

Legal Standard

24

This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

25

recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects

26

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

27

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

28

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

2

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

3

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

4

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

5

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

6

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

7

objections were made).

8

Nevertheless, this court conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the

9

recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation, the court finds

10

that good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings.

11

Accordingly,

12

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

13

Hoffman’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 4), be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

14

entirety.

15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the instant case be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED
without prejudice.

17

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

18

DATED August 29, 2017.

19
20

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-