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)

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