Orr v. City of Reno et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
BRANDON J. ORR,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00122-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
WILLIAM G. COBB
CITY OF RENO, et al.,
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 13) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s failure to keep the
Court apprised of his current address, despite LSR 2-2’ss admonition that failure to do
so may result in dismissal of his action with prejudice. Plaintiff had until January 12, 2017
to object. (ECF No. 13.) 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
R&R (ECF No. 13) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as
undeliverable. (ECF No. 14.)
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
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 Cobb’s Recommendation. The Magistrate
Judge recommends that this action be dismissed. Upon reviewing the R&R and records
in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation in full.
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 13) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice. The motion for
appointment of counsel (ECF No. 8) is denied as moot.
The Clerk is instructed to close this case.
DATED THIS 31st day of January 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?