Monroe v. Walker et al

Filing 37

ORDER accepting and adopting ECF No. 35 Report and Recommendation; dismissing without prejudice this action; directing Clerk to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/14/2017. (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

RONALD MONROE,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00515-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12

CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WALKER, et
al.,

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

Defendants.

13
14
15

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

16

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 35) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to

17

Defendant Correctional Officer Walker’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff had

18

until November 27, 2016, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been

19

filed.

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 fails

25

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

26

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 the

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

which no objection was filed).

10

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

11

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. The R&R recommends

12

dismissal pursuant to LSR2-2 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because Plaintiff has failed to

13

notify the Court of his change of address and has not made contact with Defendant or

14

the Court since he filed his last notice of change of address in October 2015. (ECF No.

15

24.) Plaintiff filed his previous notice of change of address on October 23, 2015, and

16

Defendant’s answer and the scheduling order that were served on Plaintiff in March

17

2016, were returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 33-1, 32.) On November 28, 2016,

18

Plaintiff notified the Court of his new address and stated that he has been paralyzed

19

since May 10, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) Even accepting Plaintiff’s representation as to his

20

medical condition,1 Plaintiff does not explain his failure to update his address for months

21

before May 2016, or to contact Defendant during that time. Upon reviewing the R&R and

22

the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate

23

Judge’s R&R in full.

24

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

25

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 35) is accepted and

26

adopted.

27
28

1The

medical records attached to Plaintiff’s notice indicate that he was admitted to
Mountain’s Edge Hospital on July 26, 2016 and discharged on August 17, 2016. (ECF
No. 36-1.) He was admitted at a rehabilitation center on August 19 and 27, 2016. (Id.)
2

1

It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.

2

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

3

DATED THIS 14th day of February 2017.

4
5
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3