Ferlingere v. Burkholder

Filing 4

ORDERED adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's application to proceed in form pauperis (ECF No. 1 ) is granted; plaintiff will not be required to pay an initia l fee. Clerk shall detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/11/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

RONALD-DENNIS FERLINGERE,
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
MA IMEE BURKHOLDER,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00207-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

12
Defendant.
13
14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

15

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed

16

in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff had until

17

August 21, 2016, to file an objection. No objection to the R&R has been filed.

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

23

fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any

24

issue 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.

27

See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the

28

standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and

1

recommendation to which no objections were mad2e); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

2

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

3

Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

4

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a

5

magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation

6

without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without

7

review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

8

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

9

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R

10

and proposed complaint, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the

11

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

12

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed

that the Report and

13

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) be accepted and

14

adopted in its entirety.

15
16

It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
granted; plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial fee.

17

It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

18

It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

19

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and closed

20
21

this case.
DATED THIS 11th day of October 2016.

22
23
24

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2