Swinton v. Goodwill Industries Inc
ORDER that the R&R (ECF No. 27 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety; this action is dismissed for plaintiff's failure to comply with LR IA 3-1; Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9 ) and motion to strike (ECF No. 16 ) are denied as moot; clerk directed to 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
MICHAEL A. SWINTON,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00123-MMD-VPC
GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, INC.,
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
VALERIE P. COOKE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 27) (“R&R”). No objection to the R&R has been filed.1
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
R&R (ECF No. 27) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as
undeliverable. (ECF No. 28.)
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 Cooke’s R&R. The R&R recommends that
this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to notify the court of
his change of address pursuant to LR IA 3-1. The R&R (ECF No. 27) that was mailed to
Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 28.) Upon reviewing the R&R and
records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 27) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that this action is dismissed for plaintiff’s failure to comply with LR IA
It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) and motion to
strike (ECF No. 16) are denied as moot.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
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?