Diggs v. Bloch Inc. and Leo's Dancewear et al

Filing 15

ORDER that the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke ECF No. 11 is accepted and adopted in its entirety; the Complaint ECF No. 8 is dismissed with prejudice; the Clerk is directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 05/31/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 MARYANNE DIGGS, Case No. 3:15-cv-00510-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 BLOCH, et al., ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING 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 (ECF No. 11) (“R&R”). Plaintiff was given until April 24, 2017, to 16 object to the R&R (see ECF No. 11). On April 21, 2017, plaintiff filed a motion to extend 17 time to file objections (ECF No. 12) and was granted an extension until May 24, 2017 18 (ECF No. 14). To date, no objection to the R&R 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 Cooke’s R&R. On January 3, 2017, the 11 Magistrate Judge screened and dismissed Plaintiff’s amended complaint without 12 prejudice and gave Plaintiff until February 2, 2017, to file an amended complaint to 13 address the deficiencies of her claims. (ECF No. 10.) The Magistrate Judge advised 14 Plaintiff that her failure to timely file an amended complaint will lead to a 15 recommendation to dismiss her complaint with prejudice. (Id. at 8.) On April 10, 2017, 16 two months after expiration of the time for Plaintiff to file an amended complaint, the 17 Magistrate Judge issued the R&R, recommending dismissal of the complaint with 18 prejudice because of Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the dismissal order. (ECF No. 11.) 19 Plaintiff had until April 24, 2017, to file an objection to the R&R. On April 21, 2017, 20 Plaintiff filed a motion, seeking an indefinite extension of time to file an amended 21 complaint without stating any reason supporting her request as required under LR IA 6- 22 1(a). (ECF No. 13.) Despite these deficiencies, the Court granted Plaintiff an extension 23 until May 24, 2017, to file an amended complaint. (ECF No. 14.) With this extension, 24 Plaintiff was essentially given over 120 days to file an amended complaint. To date, 25 Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint or asked for another extension of time. 26 Under 27 recommendation and will adopt the R&R. 28 /// these circumstances, the Court 2 agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 1 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 2 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No.11) is accepted and 3 adopted in its entirety. 4 It is ordered that the complaint (ECF No. 8) is dismissed with prejudice. 5 It is further ordered that the Clerk close this case. 6 DATED THIS 31st day of May 2017. 7 8 9 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3

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?