Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-00103-MMD-CWH
05-08-2017
BARBARA K. ANDERSON, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A. MELON, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 8) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) and pro se complaint. Plaintiff had until May 5, 2017, to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 8.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.
This 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).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Hoffman's R&R to dismiss the complaint with leave to amend. Upon reviewing the R&R and complaint, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that the complaint is dismissed with leave to amend to permit Plaintiff to address the deficiencies identified in the R&R (ECF No. 8 at 3-4). Plaintiff will have thirty days (30) after entry of this order to file a proposed amended complaint, which will be subject to screening. Failure to file an amended complaint will result in dismissal of this action.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's proposed temporary restraining order to be heard on order shortening time (ECF No. 7) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 8th day of May 2017.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE