Bradshaw v. The Voter Fraud Panel et al.

Filing 5

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 4 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. 1 ) is granted. Clerk shall file the complaint (ECF No. 1 -1). The complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Clerk shall close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/10/2017. (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 COLLEEN A. BRADSHAW, Case No. 3:17-cv-00409-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 THE VOTER FRAUD PANEL, et al., ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 4) (“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 August 11, 2017, to file an objection. (ECF No. 4.) To date, no objection to the R&R has 18 been filed. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 22 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 23 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 24 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 25 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 26 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 27 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 28 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 1 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 2 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 3 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 4 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 5 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 6 the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. 7 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 8 which no objection was filed). 9 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 10 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cook’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and 11 the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate 12 Judge’s R&R in full. 13 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 14 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 4) is accepted and 15 adopted in its entirety. 16 17 It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted. 18 It is further ordered that the Clerk file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 19 It is further ordered that the complaint is dismissed with prejudice. 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to cose this case. close this case. 21 DATED THIS 10th day of October 2017. 22 23 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 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?