Balthrope II v. Sacramento County Board of Supervisors et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
ROBERT BENNING BALTHROPE II,
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
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to plaintiff’s
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and proposed pro se
complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff had until March 13, 2017, to file an objection. 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 was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge
recommends dismissing this action withtou prejudice because it appears that the court
lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants. (ECF No. 3.) The proposed complaint
names defendants who are not citizens of Nevada and the alleged events supporting the
claims do not have any connection to this District. Upon reviewing the R&R and
proposed complaint, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate
Judge’s R&R in full.
Recommendation 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.
It is further ordered that the appliocation to proceed in forma pauperis is denied as
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 23rd day of March 2017.
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?