Orr v. City of North Las Vegas et al

Filing 9

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE ECF No. 8 . This action is dismissed with prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to comply with ECF Nos. 3 / 7 Orders; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/9/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BRANDON ORR,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00282-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

CITY OF NORTH LAS VEGAS, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

12
Defendants.
13
14

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

15

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 8) (“R&R”). Plaintiff had until November 8, 2017, to file

16

an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

which no objection was filed).

7

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

8

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The R&R recommends that

9

this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended

10

complaint that remedies the defects identified in the Court’s order. After reviewing the

11

filings, including Plaintiff’s complaint, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

12

recommendation.
It

13

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

14

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 8) is accepted and

15

adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice based on plaintiff’s failure

16
17

to file an amended complaint in compliance with the court’s orders (ECF Nos. 3, 7).
It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgement accordingly and close this

18
19
20

case.
DATED THIS 9th day of January 2018.

21
22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2