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)

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