Palmer v. State Bar of Nevada et al
ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 3 Report and Recommendation; granting ECF No. 1 IFP application - NDOC to pay Clerk from inmate account (copy of order sent to Finance and NDOC Chief of Inmate Services); directing Clerk to file the complaint; dismissing with prejudice the complaint; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/11/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:16-cv-00248-MMD-WGC
STATE BAR OF NEVADA, et al.,
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 20, 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 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 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.
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (ECF
No. 1) is granted; however, pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), he is still required
to pay the full amount of the filing fee over time. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this
order, Plaintiff will be required to pay an initial partial filing fee of $12.00. Thereafter, Plaintiff
will be required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s
income credited to his account to be forwarded by the agency having custody over Plaintiff
to the Clerk of this Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10 until the
$350 filing fee is paid.
It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
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?