Pullen v. Biggar et al

Filing 5

ORDER that the R&R (ECF No. 3 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety; plaintiff's IFP application (ECF No. 1 ) is granted; Clerk directed to detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1 -1); complaint is dismissed with prejudice; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/1/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8
9
10
11

***
Case No. 3:18-cv-00015-MMD-WGC

MARGARET-ILENE PULLEN,
Plaintiff,
v.
A. BIGGAR H PICKARD, et al.,

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

Defendants.

12
13

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

14

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed

15

in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1).

16

Plaintiff filed her objection on February 13, 2018 (“Objection”). (ECF No. 4.)

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

which no objection was filed).

7

The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiff’s IFP Application. Plaintiff

8

does not object to this recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will accept the

9

recommendation.

10

The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the complaint with prejudice

11

because it appears that Plaintiff may be trying to appeal a decision issued by the

12

Nevada Supreme Court. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff’s objection is essentially a copy of the

13

document filed as the complaint in this case. (Compare ECF No. 1-1 with ECF No. 4.)

14

The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to appeal the

15

Nevada Supreme Court’s decision, her recourse is to file a petition for writ of certiorari

16

with the United States Supreme Court.

17

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

18

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted and

19

adopted in its entirety.

20
21

It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25
26

this case.
DATED THIS 1st day of March 2018.

27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2