United States District Court, D. Nevada
ROBERT L. WILLIAMS, Plaintiff,
WASHOE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3)
(“R&R”) relating to plaintiff's
application to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”)
(ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
Plaintiff had until February 12, 2018 to file an objection.
(ECF No. 5.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been
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).
has not objected to the R&R. Nevertheless, the Court will
conduct a de novo review to determine whether to
adopt the R&R. The Magistrate Judge recommends granting
Plaintiff's IFP application. (ECF No. 3 at 2.) The
Magistrate Judge further recommends allowing Plaintiff to
proceed with his defamation claim against the City of Sparks,
Chet Adams, KRNV News 4 and Terri Hendry, but finding that
Plaintiff fails to state a claim against Washoe County and
Washoe County Assistant District Attorney Paul Lipparelli.
(Id. at 4.) Having reviewed the R&R and the
filings in this case, the Court agrees and will adopt the
therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No.
3) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
ordered that plaintiff's application to proceed in
forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) is granted.
further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint
(ECF No. 1-1).
further ordered that Plaintiff may proceed with his
defamation claim against the City of Sparks, Chet Adams, KRNV
News 4 and Terri Hendry (collectively,
“Defendants”) Plaintiff's defamation claim
against Washoe County and Washoe County Assistant District
Attorney Paul Lipparelli is dismissed with prejudice.
Clerk is directed to issue summons for each of the
Defendants, and send Plaintiff sufficient copies of the
complaint and service of process forms (USM-285).
will be given twenty (20) days to complet the USM-285 form
and return it to the U.S. Marshal to compete service upon the
Defendants. Within twenty (20) days of receiving from the
U.S. Marshal a copy of the USM-285 form showing whether
service has been accomplished, Plaintiff must file a notice
with the Court indicating whether the Defendants were served.
If service was not effectuated, and if Plaintiff wishes to
have service attempted again, he must file a motion with the
court providing a more detailed name and/or address for
service, or indicating that some other method of service
should be attempted. Plaintiff is reminded that pursuant to
Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, service
must be accomplished within ninety (90) days of the date of
this Order. If Plaintiff should require additional time to
meet deadlines set by this Court, he is advised that he must
file a motion for an extension of time in accordance with
Local Rule 26-4. If he requires an extension of time to
effectuate service, the motion must be supported by good
cause and must be filed before the expiration of the
service is accomplished, Plaintiff must serve a copy of every
pleading, motion or other document submitted for
consideration by the Court upon the Defendants or, if an
appearance has been entered by counsel, upon the attorney.
Plaintiff must include with the original of each document to
be filed with the Court a certificate stating that a true and
correct copy of the document was mailed to the Defendants or
counsel. The Court may ...