Bradshaw v. Miller
ORDER that the R&R (ECF No. 6 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety; ECF No. 1 Plaintiff's IFP Application is denied; ECF Nos. 4 and 5 Plaintiff's Motions to Withdraw Motion for Order of Protection are denied as moot; this action is dismissed with prejudice; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
COLLEEN A. BRADSHAW,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00544-MMD-VPC
GRANT D. MILLER,
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 6) (“R&R”), recommending dismissal due to Plaintiff’s
failure to file a complaint. Plaintiff had until January 30, 2018 to object. (Id.) To date, no
objection to the R&R has been filed.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed,
the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.
Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that
district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).
Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may
accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226
(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissing this action with prejudice based on Plaintiff’s failure to file an
amended complaint within the time period permitted by the Court. Upon reviewing the
R&R and the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the
Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation
of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF
No. 1) is denied.
It is further ordered that plaintiff’s motions to withdraw motion for order of protection
(ECF Nos. 4, 5) are denied as moot.
It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this
DATED THIS 12th day of March 2018.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?