Palmer v. State Bar of Nevada et al

Filing 4

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)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

MARKIECE PALMER,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00248-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

8
v.
9

STATE BAR OF NEVADA, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

10
Defendants.
11
12

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

13

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

14

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

15

August 20, 2016, to file an objection. No objection to the R&R has been filed.

16

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

17

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

18

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

19

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

20

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

21

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

22

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

23

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

24

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See

25

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

26

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

27

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

28

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

1

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

2

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

3

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

4

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

5

which no objection was filed).

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

Judge’s R&R in full.

10

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

11

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

12

adopted in its entirety.

13

It is further ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (ECF

14

No. 1) is granted; however, pursuant to pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b), he is still required

15

to pay the full amount of the filing fee over time. Within thirty (30) days of the date of this

16

order, Plaintiff will be required to pay an initial partial filing fee of $12.00. Thereafter, Plaintiff

17

will be required to make monthly payments of twenty percent of the preceding month’s

18

income credited to his account to be forwarded by the agency having custody over Plaintiff

19

to the Clerk of this Court each time the amount in Plaintiff’s account exceeds $10 until the

20

$350 filing fee is paid.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24
25

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

26
27

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2