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.

Perez v. Ross and Neil

United States District Court, District of Nevada

March 30, 2015

HENRY PEREZ, Plaintiffs,
v.
ROSS AND NEIL, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman. (Doc. # 4). No objections were filed, and the deadline for filing objections has passed.

On June 9, 2014, Judge Hoffman issued an order and report and recommendation. (Doc. # 2). Upon screening plaintiff’s complaint, Judge Hoffman granted plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis, dismissed several claims without prejudice, and recommended that plaintiff’s Eighth and Fifth Amendment claims be dismissed with prejudice. (Doc. # 2). Plaintiff was given thirty days to file an amended complaint.

On August 1, 2014, the court issued an order adopting Judge Hoffman’s report and recommendation in their entirety and dismissing plaintiff’s Eighth and Fifth Amendment claims with prejudice. (Doc. # 5).

Plaintiff has not submitted an amended complaint. Accordingly, Judge Hoffman issued a second report and recommendation, recommending that the remaining claims be dismissed and that the case be closed. (Doc. # 4). . . . . . .

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 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. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate judge’s findings in full.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman, (doc. # 4), are ADOPTED in their entirety. . . . . . . . . . . . .

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED. The clerk shall close the case. DATED March 30, 2015.


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.