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)

Download PDF
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

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?