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.

Hooks v. Delta Air Lines, LLC

United States District Court, District of Nevada

November 5, 2014

THEODORE HOOKS, Plaintiff(s),
v.
DELTA AIR LINES, LLC, et al., Defendant(s)

Theodore Hooks, Plaintiff, Pro se, Las Vegas, Nv.

For Delta Airline, Defendant: Anthony L. Martin, LEAD ATTORNEY Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, P.C., Las Vegas, NV; Brian L. Bradford, Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, Las Vegas, NV.

ORDER

James C. Mahan, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.

Presently before the court are Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation. (Doc. # 23). Pro se plaintiff Theodore Hooks has not filed an objection and the deadline to do so has passed.

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, 106 S.Ct. 466, 88 L.Ed.2d 435 (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 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 a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Plaintiff submitted a complaint on October 28, 2014. (Doc. # 3). Because the court granted plaintiff's request to proceed in forma pauperis, the court screened the complaint under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).

On April 4, 2014, the magistrate judge issued an order requiring the parties to deliver their Early Neutral Evaluation (" ENE") statements to chambers no later than May 6, 2014. ( See doc. # 15). The magistrate judge did not receive an ENE statement from plaintiff. On May 8, 2014, the magistrate judge ordered plaintiff to submit an ENE statement no later than May 12, 2014. ( See doc. # 17). Plaintiff, again, did not submit an ENE statement. The magistrate judge vacated the ENE conference as a result.

On May 19, 2014, defendant Delta Air Lines filed a request to reschedule the ENE. (Doc. # 19). On June 20, 2014, the magistrate judge issued an order to show cause why plaintiff should not be sanctioned for failing to comply with the court's May 12, 2014, order. (Doc. # 20). Plaintiff's response to that order to show cause was due no later than July 7, 2014. ( See id.). Plaintiff failed to respond. The magistrate judge sanctioned plaintiff in the amount of $100 for failing to comply with the court's orders. ( See doc. # 21). Plaintiff still failed to comply. The magistrate judge recommends the case be dismissed based on plaintiff's repeated failure to comply with the court's orders. ( See doc. # 23).

The court has warned plaintiff numerous times that failure to comply with its orders could result in case-dispositive sanctions. The magistrate judge's order to show cause (doc. # 20), and order sanctioning plaintiff (doc. # 21), advised plaintiff that failure to timely comply may result in a recommendation to the district judge for dismissal. In light of the failure to pay the $100 sanction, there appears no justification for the plaintiff's failures to respond to court orders. The court finds plaintiff's repeated noncompliance with this court's orders warrants case-dispositive sanctions.

Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, and in light of plaintiff's failure to object, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate's findings in full.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Magistrate Judge Ferenbach's report and recommendation (doc. # 23) be ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice. The clerk is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close the 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.