Jones v. Northern Nevada Correctional Center Intake Counselor et al

Filing 44

ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 42 Report and Recommendation; dismissing with prejudice this action; directing Clerk to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/8/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 MONROE JONES, Case No. 3:16-cv-00112-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 BRIAN WARD, et al., ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOK 12 Defendant. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) (“R&R”), recommending dismissal with prejudice. 16 Plaintiff had until June 1, 2017, to file an objection. (ECF No. 42.) To date, no objection 17 to the R&R has been filed.1 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 party 20 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 21 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 fails 23 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 24 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. See 27 28 1The R&R (ECF No. 42) and the last order entered by the Court (ECF No. 41) that were mailed to Plaintiff were returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 43.) 1 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 2 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 3 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 4 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 5 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 6 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 7 the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. 8 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 9 which no objection was filed). 10 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 11 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The R&R recommends that 12 this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with LR IA 13 3-1. LR IA 3-1 requires pro se parties like Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court of any 14 change in Plaintiff’s contact information. To date, Plaintiff has not notified the Court of 15 his current mailing address. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s 16 recommendation. 17 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 18 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) is accepted and 19 adopted in its entirety. 20 It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice. 21 It is further ordered that the Clerk close this case. 22 DATED THIS 8th day of June 2017. 23 24 25 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28 2

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?