Lugo v. Moore

Filing 7

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 6 is accepted and adopted; this action is dismissed; Plaintiff seeks a refund of the filing fee from case No. 3:17-cv-00394-RCJ-WGC, his request is denied; Clerk directed to close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/20/2017. (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

FERNANDO E. LUGO,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00539-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
TRAVIS MOORE,

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

12
Defendant.
13
14

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

15

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 6) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) recommending that

16

this case be dismissed and Plaintiff’s request for a refund from case No. 3:17-cv-00394-

17

RCJ-WGC (ECF No. 5) be denied. Plaintiff had until October 18, 2017, to file an objection.

18

No objection to the R&R has 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). Indeed,

26

the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate

27

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United

28

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

1

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

2

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

3

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

4

district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

5

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may

6

accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226

7

(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection

8

was filed).

9

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

10

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R, and

11

proposed complaint and the filings in Case No. 3:17-cv-00394-RCJ-WGC, this Court finds

12

good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

13

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation

14

of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

15

It is further ordered that this action is dismissed. To the extent Plaintiff seeks a

16

refund of the filing fee from case No. 3:17-cv-00394-RCJ-WGC, his request is denied.

17

The Clerk is directed to close this case.

18

DATED THIS 20th day of October 2017.

19
20
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2