Jones v. Northern Nevada Correctional Center Intake Counselor et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:16-cv-00112-MMD-VPC
BRIAN WARD, et al.,
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
VALERIE P. COOK
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) (“R&R”), recommending dismissal with prejudice.
Plaintiff had until June 1, 2017, to file an objection. (ECF No. 42.) To date, no objection
to the R&R has been filed.1
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
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.)
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The R&R recommends that
this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with LR IA
3-1. LR IA 3-1 requires pro se parties like Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court of any
change in Plaintiff’s contact information. To date, Plaintiff has not notified the Court of
his current mailing address. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
It is further ordered that the Clerk close this case.
DATED THIS 8th day of June 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?