Orr v. City of Reno et al

Filing 15

ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 13 Report and Recommendation; dismissing with prejudice this action; denying as moot ECF No. 8 Motion for Appointment of Counsel; directing Clerk to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/31/2017. (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 BRANDON J. ORR, Case No. 3:16-cv-00122-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB 11 CITY OF RENO, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 13) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s failure to keep the 16 Court apprised of his current address, despite LSR 2-2’ss admonition that failure to do 17 so may result in dismissal of his action with prejudice. Plaintiff had until January 12, 2017 18 to object. (ECF No. 13.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 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 28 1The R&R (ECF No. 13) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 14.) 1 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 2 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 3 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 4 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 5 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 6 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 7 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 8 the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. 9 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 10 which no objection 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 Recommendation. The Magistrate 13 Judge recommends that this action be dismissed. Upon reviewing the R&R and records 14 in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 15 Recommendation in full. 16 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 17 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 13) is accepted and 18 adopted in its entirety. 19 It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The motion for 20 appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied as moot. 21 The Clerk is instructed to close this case. 22 DATED THIS 31st day of January 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?