Webb v. Atlantis Security and Management et al

Filing 7

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 5 is accepted and adopted in its entirety; plaintiff's application to proceed in form pauperis ECF No. 1 is denied without prejudice; the complaint be dismissed with prejudice; Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and closed this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/31/2017. (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

TRACY WEBB,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00300-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12

ATLANTIS SECURITY AND
MANAGEMENT, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

13
14
15

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

16

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 5) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed

17

in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and civil rights complaint pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983

18

(ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff had until August 16, 2017, to file an objection. To date, no

19

objection to the R&R has been filed1.

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1

Plaintiff has apparently failed to file a notice of change to her address pursuant to LR
IA 3-1 because orders from this Court have been 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.

3

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

4

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

5

recommendation to which no objections were mad2e); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

6

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

7

Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

8

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a

9

magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation

10

without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without

11

review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 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 Cobb’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R

14

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

15

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

16

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed

that the Report and

17

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 5) is accepted and

18

adopted in its entirety.

19
20

It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (ECF No. 1) is
denied without prejudice.

21

It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice.

22

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and closed

23
24

this case.
DATED THIS 31st day of August 2017.

25
26
27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2