Bourne v. Ewald

Filing 6

ORDER that accepts and adopts in its entirety ECF No. 5 Report and Recommendation; this action is dismissed with prejudice; clerk directed to enter judgment and close the case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 GABRIEL BOURNE, 10 11 12 13 Case No. 3:16-cv-00499-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, v. MICHALE EWALD, et al., ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 16 Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 5) (“R&R”). Plaintiff had November 8, 2017, to file an 17 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. 18 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 20 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 22 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 23 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 24 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, 25 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 26 judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 27 States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 28 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 1 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 2 Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 3 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 4 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may 5 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 6 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection 7 was filed). 8 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 9 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge 10 recommends dismissal based upon Plaintiff’s failure to comply with the Court’s previous 11 order dismissing the complaint with leave to amend. Upon reviewing the R&R and the 12 filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 13 R&R in full. 14 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation 15 of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 5) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. 16 It is further ordered this action is dismissed with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure 17 18 19 to file an amended complaint in compliance with this court’s order (ECF No. 3). It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly and close this case. DATED THIS 8th day of January 2018. 20 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?