United States District Court, D. Nevada
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman. (Doc. # 8). Pro se plaintiff Raquiyak Stacy Sharrief sent a letter objecting to the recommendation. (Doc. # 9).
On November 11, 2011, the court granted plaintiff's application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and dismissed her complaint without prejudice. (Doc. # 4). In its dismissal order, the court pointed out specific insufficiencies in the complaint and gave leave for plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty days. Id. The order also stated that a failure to file an amended complaint within that time period could result in the dismissal of this action. Id. Now, over two years later, plaintiff still has not filed an amended complaint. Accordingly, Magistrate Judge Hoffman recommended that the court dismiss this action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 16(f) and 37(b)(2)(A)(v). (Doc. # 8).
This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 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 conduct "any review at all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
In response to the report and recommendation, plaintiff sent a letter, addressed to Magistrate Judge Ferenbach, stating:
I do, herein, most vociferously object to and adamantly protest the innumerable hate-filled lies contained within Magistrate C.W. Hoffman's neurotically crazed tirade and, also, his very juvenile rantings and ravings!!
How, then, can you in anything resembling even so much as a mere modicum of good conscience justify the outrageous manifestation of abject evil epitomized, only, by true lovers of satan and all of his mischievousness and mayhem [who would, of course] knowingly witingly and deliberately, most flagrantly, ignore an obviously completely legitimate, both justly and fairly executed case for a maliciously interminably two long years???!!
(Doc. # 9).
The court is unable to determine any particular portion of the magistrate judge's recommendation that plaintiff objects to. However, upon reviewing the record in this case, the court finds that dismissal is appropriate. Though dismissal for failure to obey a court order is a harsh penalty only to be imposed in extreme circumstances, Malone v. U.S. Postal Serv., 833 F.2d 128, 130 (9th Cir. 1987), over twenty-seven months have passed since the expiration of the deadline, and plaintiff has made no attempt to file an amended complaint. Indeed, plaintiff's objection to the report and recommendation did not indicate that plaintiff has any intention to file an amended complaint. Thus, the court finds that dismissal of this action is warranted.
Therefore, upon reviewing the report and the underlying documents, the court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge's findings in full.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman (doc. # 8) are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The clerk shall enter judgment ...