Rodriguez v. Cox et al

Filing 47

ORDER - It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the # 45 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety. This case is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/16/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JOSE RODRIGUEZ,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00439-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
JAMES COX, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOK

12
Defendants.
13
14
15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 45) (“R&R”). No objection to the R&R has been filed.1

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

The R&R (dkt. no. 45) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable
and stamped “inmate paroled.” (Dkt. no. 46.)

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 R&R recommends that

10

this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to file a change of

11

address pursuant to LSR 2-2. After reviewing the filings, the Court agrees with the

12

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

13

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

14

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 45) is accepted and

15

adopted in its entirety.

16

It is ordered that this case be dismissed with prejudice.

17

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

18

DATED THIS 16th day of December 2015.

19
20
21

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2