Lietzke v. County of Montgomery et al

Filing 5

ORDER adopting and accepting in its entirety 4 Report and Recommendation; granting 1 IFP application, directing Clerk to file 1 -1 complaint; dismissing with prejudice the complaint. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/1/2014. (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

BILL LIETZKE,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00197-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

12
Defendants.
13
14

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

15

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 4) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed in

16

forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) and pro se complaint (dkt. no. 1-1). No objection to the R&R

17

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 Cobb’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

10

recommended granting Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis because his

11

monthly expenses and debt make it unlikely he would be able pay the filing fee. The

12

Magistrate Judge recommended dismissing the complaint with prejudice because

13

Plaintiff seeks to file a criminal charge. Upon reviewing the R&R and Plaintiff’s filings,

14

this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

15

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

16

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 4) be accepted and

17

adopted in its entirety.

18
19

It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (dkt. no. 1)
without having to prepay the filing fee is granted.

20

It is further ordered that the Clerk shall detach and file the complaint (dkt. no. 1-1).

21

It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

22

DATED THIS 1st day of October 2014.

23
24

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2