Pratt v. Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners

Filing 37

ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 36 Report and Recommendation; dismissing without prejudice this case; denying as moot ECF No. 35 Motion to Dismiss; directing Clerk to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/10/2017. (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

JACOB R. PRATT,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00505-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12

CHIEF PAROLE AND PROBATION
OFFICER, 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. 36) (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of this action

17

without prejudice. Plaintiff had until July 5, 2017, to object to the R&R. To date, no

18

objection has been filed.

19

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

20

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

26

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

which no objection was filed).

9

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

10

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

11

recommends permitting Plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss this action without prejudice. (ECF

12

No. 36.) Upon reviewing the R&R and records in this case, this Court finds good cause

13

to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

14

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

15

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 36) is accepted and

16

adopted in its entirety.

17

It is ordered that this case is dismissed without prejudice.

18

It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (or Alternatively Motion for

19

Summary Judgment) (ECF No. 35) is denied as moot.

20

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

21

DATED THIS 10th day of July 2017.

22
23
24

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2