Bayard v. United States of America et al

Filing 23

ORDER accepting and adopting 17 Report and Recommendation; denying 5 MOTION/APPLICATION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; and dismissing this action with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/31/14. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

ANTWON MAURICE BAYARD,
BAYARD MAURICE ANTWON,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00446-MMD-WGC

11
Plaintiff,
v.

12
13

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al,

14

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

Defendants.

15
16

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

17

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 17) (“R&R”) recommending the Court dismiss this action

18

with prejudice. An objection to the R&R was timely filed by Plaintiff (“Objection”) (dkt. no.

19

18).

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

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

recommendation to which no objection was filed).

10

While Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R, he does not address the R&R.

11

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

12

whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s Recommendation. Upon reviewing the

13

Recommendation and underlying filings, this Court finds good cause to adopt the

14

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in full.

15

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

16

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 17) be accepted and

17

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. This

18

action is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to close this case.

19

DATED THIS 31st day of December 2014.

20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2