Morse v. Aranas et al

Filing 46

AMENDED ORDER Re: ECF No. 44 Order (The Court amends this order only to correct a typo. The previous version of this order referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1983 instead of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.) Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du nunc pro tunc on 6/24/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

ROBERT WADE MORSE,

7
8
9

Case No. 3:16-cv-00680-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

AMENDED ORDER1

v.
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Plaintiff Robert Wade Morse, who was in the custody of the Nevada Department

12

of Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is

13

the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States

14

Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 42), recommending that the Court dismiss

15

this action with prejudice due to Plaintiff’s failure to prosecute this action, and to

16

respond to the Court’s order to show cause. Plaintiff had until June 17, 2019 to file an

17

objection. (Id.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as

18

explained below, the Court adopts the R&R.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object,

24

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

25

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

26

Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

27

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

28

1The

Court amends this order only to correct a typo. The previous version of this
order referenced 18 U.S.C. § 1983 instead of 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

then the Court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

8

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

9

recommendation to which no objection was filed).

10

While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation to dismiss

11

this action, the Court will conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the

12

R&R. Judge Cobb found that Plaintiff has failed to prosecute this action since the

13

unsuccessful mediation held on February 6, 2018, and to respond to his order to show

14

cause as to why this action should not be dismissed for want of prosecution. (ECF No.

15

42.) Having reviewed the R&R and the records in this case, the Court agrees with

16

Judge Cobb.

17
18

It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
42) is adopted in full.

19

It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.

20

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34)

21
22
23
24

is denied as moot.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order
and close this case.
DATED nunc pro tunc THIS 24th day of June 2019.

25
26
27
28

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE