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.

Gettings v. CEBU Pacific

United States District Court, District of Nevada

May 27, 2015

JIMMY GETTINGS, Plaintiffs,
v.
CEBU PACIFIC, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

Presently before the court are the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman. (Doc. # 2). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has now passed.

On April 24, 2015, pro se plaintiff Jimmy Gettings ("plaintiff) filed a motion to proceed in forma pauperis. (Doc. # 1). Plaintiff attached a proposed complaint to his motion alleging fraud, consumer fraud, larceny/thief by deception, RICO violations, and conversion against defendants CEBU Pacific and Maganda Travel & Tours, Inc. ("defendants"). (Doc. # 1-2). Upon consideration of plaintiff s motion, (doc. # 1), Judge Hoffman recommended that the motion be denied. In light of that recommendation, Judge Hoffman did not screen plaintiffs complaint. (Doc. # 2).

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.

The court will therefore deny plaintiffs motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff must file the $400.00 filing fee within thirty days from the date of this order. Failure to comply with this order may result in dismissal of the instant action.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman, (doc. # 2), be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (doc. # 1), be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff shall pay the filing fee of $400.00 within thirty days from the date of this order.


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.