Webb v. St. Marys Nurses & Doctors et al

Filing 7

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 5 ) in its entirety : Plaintiff's IFP Application (ECF No. 1 ) is denied. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Clerk shall enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/10/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

TRACY WEBB,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00286-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12

ST. MARY’S NURSES & DOCTORS, et
al.,

13

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 5) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed

17

In Forma Pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1) Plaintiff had until

18

September 11, 2017, to file an objection. (ECF No. 5) To date, no objection has been

19

filed.1

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
28

1The

R&R (ECF No. 5) and the last order entered by the Court (ECF No. 3) that
were mailed to Plaintiff were returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 4, 6.)

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

which no objection was filed).

12

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

13

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The R&R recommends that

14

this action be dismissed without prejudice. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s

15

recommendation.

16

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

17

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 5) is accepted and

18

adopted in its entirety.

19

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Application to Proceed in District Court Without

20

Prepaying Fees or Costs (ECF No. 1) is denied for the reasons outlined in the R&R

21

(ECF No. 5).

22

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

23

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.

24

DATED THIS 10th day of October 2017.

25
26
27

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2