George v. Dutcher ( 2019 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 LESLIE GEORGE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00106-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JENNIFER DUTCHER, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 12 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 7), 13 recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 1), 14 file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1), and dismiss the action with prejudice as frivolous. Judge 15 Cobb also recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion to close his name change case (ECF 16 No. 3) because it is filed in the wrong court. (ECF No. 7 at 5.) Plaintiff had until July 25, 17 2019, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 For this 18 reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 22 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 23 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, 24 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 25 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth 26 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 27 28 1Plaintiff has filed several exhibits (ECF Nos. 8-10) but has not specifically objected 1 || report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 2 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 3 || employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 4 || objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 5 || Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 6 || district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 7 || Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 8 || accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 9 || 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 10 || objection was filed). 11 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation, the Court will 12 || conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb found that 13 || Plaintiff's Complaint—containing nonsensical and rambling statement with no basis in law 14 || or fact—is frivolous. (ECF No. 7 at 3-4.) Judge Cobb also found that Plaintiff's motion to 15 || close his name change case was filed in the wrong court. (/d. at 5.) Having reviewed the 16 || R&R, the Complaint, and the motion, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb. 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18 || 7) is accepted and adopted in full. 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 20 || No. 1) is granted. 21 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 22 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to close his name change case (ECF No. 23 || 3) is denied as filed in the wrong court. 24 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous. 25 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court close this case. 26 DATED THIS 30° day of July 2019. 28 MIRANDA M.DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Document Info

Docket Number: 3:19-cv-00106

Filed Date: 7/30/2019

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/25/2024