United States District Court, D. Nevada
July 9, 2014
TELLER, an individual, Plaintiff(s),
GERARD DOGGE (p/k/a Gerard Bakardy) an individual, Defendant(s)
JAMES C. MAHAN, District Judge.
Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley. (Doc. # 222). No objections have been filed even though the deadline for filing objections has passed.
Upon considering plaintiff Teller's motion for case dispositive sanctions, (doc. # 205), Magistrate Judge Foley recommended that defendant Dogge's answer be stricken and default entered.
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, 1121 (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 this 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 de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. It is evident that defendant Dogge has consistently refused to cooperate in the litigation process and failed to comply with orders of the court. For his final trick in this case, defendant Dogge has disappeared entirely-first refusing to participate in required pretrial procedures then insisting he would not physically attend trial. Thus, the court finds good cause to ADOPT the magistrate judge's findings in full.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley, (doc. # 222), are ADOPTED in their entirety.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff Teller's motion for case-dispositive sanctions, (doc. # 205), is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that defendant Dogge's answer, (doc. # 39), be stricken in its entirety. The clerk is instructed to enter default against defendant Dogge.