Cavallo v. Donahoe et al
Filing
6
ORDER REGARDING accepting and adopting 5 Report and Recommendation; granting 1 Motion/Application for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; directing clerk to file complaint; dismissing complaint without prejudice, without leave to amend; and directing clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/22/15. (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
SHELLA CAVALLO,
Case No. 3:14-cv-00647-MMD-VPC
Plaintiffs,
10
v.
11
PATRICK DONAHOE, et al.,
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE
12
Defendants.
13
14
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
15
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 5) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed in
16
forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) and pro se complaint (dkt. no. 1-1). Plaintiffs had until May
17
14, 2015, to file an objection. No objection to the R&R 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 Cook’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and
10
underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate
11
Judge’s R&R in full.
12
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
13
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 5) is accepted and
14
adopted in its entirety.
15
16
It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (dkt. no. 1)
without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted.
17
It is further ordered that the Clerk shall detach and file the complaint (dkt. no. 1-1).
18
It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice, without
19
20
21
22
leave to amend.
It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.
DATED THIS 22nd day of June 2015.
23
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?