Ferguson v. President ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 WILLIAM FERGUSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00134-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JUDGE, 9 Defendant. 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. 4), 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 for failure to state 15 a claim. Plaintiff had until July 25, 2019, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the 16 R&R has been filed.1 For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R. 17 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 19 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 20 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 21 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, 22 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 23 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth 24 25 1The copy of the Report and Recommendation sent to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable (ECF No. 5), but Plaintiff has an ongoing obligation to apprise the Court of 26 his address. LR IA 3-1 (“An attorney or pro se party must immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, email address, telephone number, 27 or facsimile number. The notification must include proof of service on each opposing party or the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the 28 action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as deemed appropriate by the 1 || Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate □□□□□□□ 2 || report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 3 || Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 4 || employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 5 || objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 6 || Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 7 || district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 8 || Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 9 || accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 10 || 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 11 || objection was filed). 12 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation, the Court will 13 || conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb found that 14 || Plaintiff's Complaint—containing delusional scenarios and disjointed statements with no 15 || basis in law or fact—is frivolous. (ECF No. 4 at 4.) Having reviewed the R&R and the 16 || Complaint, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb. 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18 || 4) 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 this action is dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a 23 || claim. 24 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court close this case. 25 DATED THIS 5" day of August 2019. 26 4, | 27 MIRANDA M. DU 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE