Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Cox v. Randazza

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 14, 2014

CRYSTAL L. COX, Plaintiff,
v.
MARC J. RANDAZZA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach ("R&R") (dkt. no. 30) recommending Plaintiff Crystal Cox's Complaint be dismissed with prejudice, and Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 28) and Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (dkt. no. 29) be denied as moot. Plaintiff did not file an objection to the R&R.

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). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 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 the R&R. The Court entered an order on November 27, 2013, dismissing the claims in the Complaint and permitting Plaintiff to file an amended complaint within thirty-three (33) days. (Dkt. no. 27.) The Court informed Plaintiff that "the case may be dismissed with prejudice" if no amended complaint is filed. ( Id. ) Plaintiff took no further action until April 14, 2014, when she filed her Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 28) and her Motion for Appointment of Counsel (dkt. no. 29). These filings do not address why Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint and they do not seek an extension of time. It has now been over five (5) months and Plaintiff has not filed an amended complaint.

Upon reviewing the R&R and the record in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered that the R&R (dkt. no. 30) be accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 28) and Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (dkt. no. 29) are denied as moot.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.