Wallace v. Veterans Affairs
Filing
7
ORDER accepting and adopting 5 Report and Recommendation and dismissing the case without prejudice. 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
JOHN WILLIAM WALLACE,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00161-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,
10
v.
11
VETERANS AFFAIRS, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOK
12
Defendant.
13
14
15
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (“R&R”). (Dkt. no. 5.) No objection to the R&R has been filed.
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
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
28
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
1
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
2
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
3
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
4
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
5
which no objection was filed).
6
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
7
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The R&R recommended
8
that this action be dismissed without prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to submit a
9
request to proceed in forma pauperis or a properly styled complaint. The R&R (dkt. no.
10
5) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (Dkt. no. 6.) Upon
11
reviewing the R&R and records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the
12
Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
13
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
14
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 5) is accepted and
15
adopted in its entirety.
16
It is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
17
DATED THIS 22nd day of June 2015.
18
19
20
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
21
22
23
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?