Taylor et al v. Kazmar et al

Filing 16

ORDERED adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 7 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice. It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/25/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA
***

8
9

DANIELLE TAYLOR,
ROBERT MARKLEY,

10
11
12

Case No. 3:16-cv-00109-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

v.
NICOLE KAZMAR, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

13
14
15
16

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 7) (“R&R”). No objection to the R&R has been filed.1

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26
27
28

have failed to comply with LR IA 3-1, which provides that “a pro se party
must immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address .
. . Failure to comply with this rule may result in dismissal of the action with prejudice.”
The Court notes that, as a result of plaintiffs’ failure to comply with LR IA 3-1, the last four
(4) mailings from this Court were returned as undeliverable. (See ECF Nos. 11, 12, 13,
15.)
1Plaintiffs

1

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

2

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

3

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

4

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

5

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

6

district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

7

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may

8

accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226

9

(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection

10

was filed).

11

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

12

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

13

this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiffs’ failure to cure the

14

deficiencies in the complaint. After reviewing the filings, the Court agrees with the

15

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.

16

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

17

of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 7) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

18

It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

19

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.

20

DATED THIS 25th day of October 2016.

21
22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2