Kuzmicki v. Neidert et al

Filing 4

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 3 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. 1 ) is granted. Clerk shall detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/26/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 STANLEY KUZMICKI, Case No. 3:17-cv-00341-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 DAVID NEIDERT, ESQ., et al., ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed 16 in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff had until 17 July 14, 2017, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. 18 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 20 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 22 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 23 fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any 24 issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 25 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 26 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. 27 See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the 28 standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and 1 recommendation to which no objections were mad2e); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 2 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 3 Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any 4 issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a 5 magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation 6 without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without 7 review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed). 8 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 9 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R 10 and proposed complaint, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the 11 Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full. 12 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 13 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted and 14 adopted in its entirety. 15 16 It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted; plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial fee. 17 It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 18 It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. 19 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and closed 20 21 this case. DATED THIS 26th day of July 2017. 22 23 24 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 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?