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)

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