Schroeder et al v. Kendall County 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; directing Clerk to close this case. 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

C. JOE SCHROEDER, NEVADA LLC,
1(888)SNOWPLW,LLC,

10
Plaintiffs,
11
12
13

v.

Case No. 3:14-cv-00353-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM GL. COBB

KENDALL COUNTY, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15

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

16

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

17

forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) and pro se complaint (dkt. no. 1-1). Plaintiffs had until

18

September 12, 2014, to file an objection. No objection to the R&R has been filed.

19

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

20

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

21

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

22

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

23

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

24

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

25

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

which no objection was filed).

9

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

10

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

11

and Plaintiff’s filings, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate

12

Judge’s R&R in full.

13

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

14

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

15

adopted in its entirety.

16
17

It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (dkt. no. 1) is
granted; plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial fee.

18

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

19

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

20

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

21

DATED THIS 1st day of October 2014.

22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2