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)

Download PDF
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

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?