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.

Bundy v. Obama

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 1, 2014

CLIVEN BUNDY, DAVID ROTHROCK, Plaintiffs,
v.
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 4) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction, Temporary Restraining Order (dkt, no. 1) filed on May 16, 2014. The document, however, was not accompanied by either the $350 filing fee and $50 administrative fee or a completed application to proceed in forma pauperis. On May 27, 2014, Magistrate Judge Cobb entered an order giving Plaintiffs thirty (30) days to pay the filing fee or file a completed application in forma pauperis. (Dkt. no. 3.) They were advised that a failure to do so would result in an order dismissing this action. ( Id. ) As of August 25, 2014, Plaintiffs had not complied with the court's order, and Magistrate Judge Cobb submitted his R&R. Plaintiffs had until September 11, 2014, to object to the R&R. No objection to the R&R has been filed.

This Court "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 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 Magistrate Judge Cobb's Recommendation. The Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed. Upon reviewing the Recommendation and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation in full.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 4) be accepted and adopted in its entirety.

It is ordered that this action is dismissed.

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.


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.