Langford v. McNeill ( 2019 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 JUSTIN ODELL LANGFORD, Case No. 3:19-cv-00175-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 MONIQUE A. MCNEILL, ESQ., 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. 3), 13 recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (ECF No. 1), 14 dismiss this action, and administratively close this case. Plaintiff had until August 1, 2019, 15 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and 16 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 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 25 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 26 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 27 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 28 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 1 || Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 2 || district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 3 || Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 4 || accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 5 || 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 6 || objection was filed). 7 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation, the Court will 8 || conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb found that 9 || Plaintiff's action improperly asserts a claim for ineffective assistance of counsel and that 10 || this action should be dismissed and the case administratively closed so Plaintiff can bring 11 || his claim in a direct appeal, post-conviction, or habeas corpus proceeding, after 12 || exhausting applicable administrative remedies. (ECF No. 3 at 1.) Having reviewed the 13 || R&R and the Complaint, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb. 14 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 15 || 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 17 || No. 1) is denied. 18 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 19 It is further ordered that the Clerk of the Court close this case. 20 DATED THIS 6" day of August 2019. 22 WRANDAM. 53 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28