Ferlingere v. Burkholder
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MA IMEE BURKHOLDER,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00207-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed
in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff had until
August 21, 2016, to file an objection. No objection to the R&R has been filed.
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
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 mad2e); 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 R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R
and proposed complaint, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed
that the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) be accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
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.
It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and closed
DATED THIS 11th day of October 2016.
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?