Pierce v. Skoinik
Filing
121
ORDER adopting and accepting 120 Report and Recommendation; dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff's complaint; instructing Clerk to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/12/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
SPENCER PIERCE,
Case No. 3:10-cv-00239-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,
12
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE
Defendants.
13
14
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
15
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 120) (“R&R”) relating to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
16
(dkt. no. 117). Plaintiff had until October 25, 2014, to object to the R&R. No objection to
17
the R&R has been filed.
18
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
19
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
20
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
21
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
22
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
23
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
24
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
25
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
26
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
27
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
28
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
1
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
2
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
3
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
4
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
5
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
6
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
7
which no objection was filed).
8
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
9
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge
10
recommended granting dismissal based upon plaintiff’s failure to respond to defendants’
11
motion to dismiss, failure to file a fourth amended complaint, failure to prosecute this
12
action, and failure to file a change of address in accordance with LSR 2-2. Upon
13
reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the
14
Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
15
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
16
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 120) be accepted and
17
adopted in its entirety.
18
It is ordered that plaintiff’s complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
19
The Clerk is instructed to close this case.
20
DATED THIS 12th day of March 2015.
21
22
23
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
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?