Federal National Mortgage Association v. Plough

Filing 8

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR. The Report and Recommendation ECF No. 3 is accepted and adopted in its entirety; this case is remanded to state court; Motion to Remand to State Court ECF No. 6 is denied as moot; clerk directed to close this case. (certified copy of Order and docket sheet mailed to Las Vegas Township Justice Court, Case Number 17c012505). Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 09/07/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE
ASSOCIATION,

10
Plaintiff,
11
12
13

v.

Case No. 2:17-cv-01996-MMD-CWH
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR.

CHANDRA PLOUGH,
Defendant.

14
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
15

Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 3) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s application to

16
proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). In his order (ECF No. 3) the Magistrate Judge
17
granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended that the case be
18
remanded to state court. Plaintiff had until August 10, 2017, to file an objection. To date,
19
no objection to the R&R has been filed.
20

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

21
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
22
23
24
25
26

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).

27
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
28

1

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

2

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

3

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

4

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

5

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

6

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

7

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

8

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

9

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

10

which no objection was filed).

11

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

12

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R

13

and filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R

14

in full.
It

15

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

16

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 3) is accepted and

17

adopted in its entirety.

18

It is ordered that this case be remanded to state court.

19

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to remand (ECF No. 6) is denied as

20

moot.

21

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

22

DATED THIS 7th day of September 2017.

23
24
25

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2