Tagle v. Cal-Trans et al

Filing 15

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 13 in its entirety. This action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to amend. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for transfer of records (ECF No. 8 ) and motion for records/court case documents (ECF No. 9 ) are denied as moot. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/14/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10
11
12

VICTOR TAGLE,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00448-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

v.
CAL-TRANS, et al.,

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

Defendants.

13
14

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

15

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 13) (“R&R”), recommending dismissal of the

16

complaint without prejudice and without leave to amend. Plaintiff had until May 15,

17

2016 to object. To date, 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

20

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

21

is 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

23

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

24

issue 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.

27

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

28

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

1

recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

2

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

3

Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

4

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a

5

magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation

6

without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without

7

review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 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 Judge Cooke’s R&R. The R&R recommends that this action

10

be dismissed without prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to state a colorable ' 1983

11

claim against any of the named defendants.1 Upon reviewing the R&R and the

12

complaint, this Court agrees with Judge Cooke’s recommendation and will adopt the

13

R&R in full.

14

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and

15

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 13) is accepted and

16

adopted in its entirety.

17
18
19
20

It is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice and without leave to
amend.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for transfer of records (ECF No. 8) and
motion for records/court case documents (ECF No. 9) are denied as moot.

21

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

22

DATED THIS 14th day of July 2016.

23
24

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28

1

The R&R (ECF No. 13) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as
undeliverable. (ENF No. 14.)
2