Case Information
*1 Case 3:15-cv-00594-MMD-VPC Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 2 1
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
* * *
DANIELLE TAYLOR, Case No. 3:15-cv-00594-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE BARBARA ANN KELLER, et al ., VALERIE P. COOK
Defendants.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 5) (“ R&R ”) , recommending that the complaint be dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff had until June 3, 2016 to object. (ECF No. 5.) To date, noo objection to the R&R has been filed. [1]
This C ourt “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge .” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to condu ct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn , 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and recommenda tion where no objections have been filed. See *2 Case 3:15-cv-00594-MMD-VPC Document 7 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2 1 United States v. Reyna-Tapia , 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone , 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation without review . See, e.g. , Johnstone , 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke ’s R &R. The R&R recommends that this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff’s failure to file an amended complaint that remedies the defects identified in the Court’s order. After reviewing the R&R and the records in this case , the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No.5) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that the complaint (ECF No. 4) is dismissed with prejudice. It is further ordered that the Clerk close this case.
DATED THIS 26 th day of July 2016.
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2
[1] The R&R (ECF No. 5) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 6.)