May 11, 2015
ALLEN S. MEREDITH, Plaintiff,
R. ARANAS, et. al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOK
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 38) ("R&R") relating to defendants' motion to dismiss, (dkt .no. 29) based on plaintiffs failure to comply with Local Special Rule ("LSR") 2-2 requiring plaintiff to change his address. 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. Am, 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 Cooke's R&R. The R&R recommended granting the motion to dismiss with prejudice based upon Plaintiff's failure to notify the Court of his change of address pursuant to LSR 2-2. The R&R indicated that Plaintiff's last filing in this case was on December 18, 2014, when he notified the Court of his change of address. (Dkt. nos. 38, 26.) The R&R further indicated that Plaintiff failed to appear at a scheduled hearing set for January 20, 2015. (Dkt. no. 38 at 1.) The last two orders of the Court, including the R&R, that were mailed to Plaintiff were returned as underliverable. (Dkt. nos. 39, 40.) Upon reviewing the R&R and records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 38) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that defendants' motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 29) is granted.
It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice for plaintiff's failure to comply with LSR 2-3.