Balthrope II v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors et al

Filing 4

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is Ordered, Adjudged and Decreed that the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 3 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is further Ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice and the application to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as moot; Clerk directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 03/23/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ROBERT BENNING BALTHROPE II,
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12
13

SACRAMENTO COUNTY BOARD OF
SUPERVISOR, et al.,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00107-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

16

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to plaintiff’s

17

application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and proposed pro se

18

complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff had until March 13, 2017, to file an objection. To date,

19

no objection to the R&R has been filed.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

25

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

26

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

27

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

28

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

1

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

2

of 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 the

5

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

6

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

7

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

8

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

9

which no objection was filed).

10

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

11

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

12

recommends dismissing this action withtou prejudice because it appears that the court

13

lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. (ECF No. 3.) The proposed complaint

14

names defendants who are not citizens of Nevada and the alleged events supporting the

15

claims do not have any connection to this District. Upon reviewing the R&R and

16

proposed complaint, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate

17

Judge’s R&R in full.
It

18

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

19

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted and

20

adopted in its entirety.

21

It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.

22

It is further ordered that the appliocation to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as

23
24
25

moot.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 23rd day of March 2017.

26
27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2