Booth v. Washoe County Sheriff et al

Filing 7

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 5 is accepted and adopted; this action is dismissed without prejudice; Clerk directed to close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/27/2018. (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

WILLIAM WARREN BOOTH

Case No. 3:17-cv-00601-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11

WASHOE COUNTY SHERIFF, et al.,
12

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

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 Judge Cobb’s order giving

16

Plaintiff thirty (30) days to pay the filing fee or file a completed application in forma

17

pauperis. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff was advised that a failure to do so would result in an

18

order dismissing this action. (Id.) Plaintiff had until February 13, 2018, to object to the

19

R&R. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1

20

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

22

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

23

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

24

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

25

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

26

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

27
28

1The

R&R (ECF No. 5) and the last order entered by the Court (ECF No. 3) that
were mailed to Plaintiff were returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 4, 6.)

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

which no objection was filed).

12

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

13

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s Recommendation. The Magistrate

14

Judge recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice. Upon reviewing the

15

Recommendation and the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the

16

Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in full.

17

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

18

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

19

adopted in its entirety.

20

It is ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.

21

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

22

DATED THIS 27th day of February 2018.

23
24
25

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2