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)

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