Webb v. Atlantis Security and Management
3:17-cv-00300
D. Nev.Aug 31, 2017Background
- Plaintiff Tracy Webb filed a civil-rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and an application to proceed in forma pauperis.
- Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R) addressing Webb’s IFP application and complaint.
- Plaintiff was given until August 16, 2017 to file objections to the R&R but filed none; prior court mailings were returned as undeliverable.
- The District Court noted the rule that a failure to object relieves the court of any obligation to review de novo but elected to perform a de novo review anyway.
- After review, the Court accepted and adopted the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full, denied Webb’s IFP application without prejudice, and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to accept R&R absent objections | Webb did not file objections (no substantive argument preserved) | Defendants implicitly relied on R&R findings | Court accepted and adopted R&R despite no objections |
| Whether to grant IFP status | Webb sought to proceed IFP | Court noted deficiencies supporting denial | IFP denied without prejudice |
| Whether complaint should proceed | Webb filed § 1983 complaint | R&R found grounds for dismissal | Complaint dismissed with prejudice |
| Whether court must review R&R when no objections | Webb did not object | Defendants relied on standard practice of adopting R&R | Court noted it may decline review but performed de novo review and adopted R&R |
Key Cases Cited
- Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985) (absence of objections allows district court discretion to forgo de novo review)
- United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (district courts need not review de novo R&Rs when no objections are filed)
- Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219 (D. Ariz. 2003) (district court accepted magistrate judge recommendation where no objection was filed)