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.

Cooper v. Humboldt County Superior Court

United States District Court, D. Nevada

October 27, 2014

GLENDA L. COOPER, Plaintiff,
v.
HUMBOLDT COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT, et al., Defendants.

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

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ("R&R") (dkt. no. 7) recommending Plaintiff Glenda L. Cooper's action be dismissed with prejudice. Objections to the R&R were due by September 12, 2014. ( Id. ) 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." 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 R&R 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 R&R finds that the Complaint states no colorable claims and seeks relief that this Court cannot provide. (Dkt. no. 7 at 4-5.) Upon reviewing the R&R and the record, this Court finds good cause to adopt the R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered that the R&R (dkt. no. 7) be accepted and adopted in its entirety. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Appointment of Counsel (dkt. no. 3), Motion in Limine (dkt. no. 4) and Motion for Protective Order (dkt. no. 6) are denied as moot.

The Clerk is directed 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.