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.

Cavallo v. Donahoe

United States District Court, D. Nevada

June 22, 2015

SHELLA CAVALLO, Plaintiffs,
v.
PATRICK DONAHOE, et al., Defendants.

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE

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. 5) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) and pro se complaint (dkt. no. 1-1). Plaintiffs had until May 14, 2015, to file an objection. 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. 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 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 Cook’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to accept and 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. 5) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in form pauperis (dkt. no. 1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted.

It is further ordered that the Clerk shall detach and file the complaint (dkt. no. 1-1).

It is further ordered that the complaint be dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend.

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and 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.