From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

1597 Ashfield Valley Tr. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n Sys.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 30, 2017
Case No. 2:14-CV-2123 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. May. 30, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 2:14-CV-2123 JCM (GWF)

05-30-2017

1597 ASHFIELD VALLEY TRUST, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION SYSTEM, et al., Defendant(s).


ORDER

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation that "Plaintiff 1597 Ashfield Valley Trust's Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) be dismissed and default judgment on Defendants' counterclaims be entered against Plaintiff 1597 Ashfield Valley Trust." (ECF No. 143 at 2) (emphasis omitted). No timely objections have been filed to the report and recommendation.

This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, 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.").

Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

This court holds that the magistrate judge properly recognized that this court informed plaintiff of its need to retain counsel to appear in federal court. (ECF Nos. 141, 143); see also Rowland v. California Men's Colony, Unit II Men's Advisory Council, 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley (ECF No. 143) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety.

DATED May 30, 2017.

/s/ James C. Mahan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

1597 Ashfield Valley Tr. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n Sys.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 30, 2017
Case No. 2:14-CV-2123 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. May. 30, 2017)
Case details for

1597 Ashfield Valley Tr. v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Ass'n Sys.

Case Details

Full title:1597 ASHFIELD VALLEY TRUST, et al., Plaintiff(s), v. FEDERAL NATIONAL…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: May 30, 2017

Citations

Case No. 2:14-CV-2123 JCM (GWF) (D. Nev. May. 30, 2017)