Webb v. Federal Court Staff et al

Filing 7

ORDERED, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 5 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/31/2017. (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-00350-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

FEDERAL COURT STAFF, 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. 5) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed

16

in forma pauperis (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) Plaintiff had until August 16, 2017, to file an

17

objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed1.

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
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

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

12

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

13

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

14

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed

that the Report and

15

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

16

adopted in its entirety.

17

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

18

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

19
20

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

21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2