Belluomini v. State Of California et al

Filing 6

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB. plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ECF No. 4 is denied; Clerk directed to detach and file complaint ECF No. 1 -1; the complaint is dismissed with prejudice; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/28/2018. (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

PAUL LOUIS BELLUOMINI,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00415-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, 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 pro se complaint (ECF

16

No. 1-1). Plaintiff had until March 27, 2018, to file an objection. (ECF No. 5.) To date, no

17

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 fails

23

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

24

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. See

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

which no objection was filed).

8

The Magistrate Judge correctly observed that Plaintif has not filed a completed

9

application to proceed in forma pauperis or paid the filing fee. (ECF No. 5 at 1-2.)

10

Nevertheless, the Magistrate Judge screened the complaint and recommended

11

dismissal with prejudice. Having reviewed the R&R and the filings in this case, the Court

12

agrees and will adopt the R&R. (Id. at 3.)

13

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

14

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

15

adopted in its entirety.

16
17

It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is
denied.

18

It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

19

It is further ordered that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice.

20

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

21

DATED THIS 28th day of March 2018.

22
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2