Opinion
Case No. 2:16-cv-02701-MMD-VCF
01-12-2017
RONALD SATISH EMRIT, Plaintiff, v. SOUTHERN NEVADA REGIONAL HOUSING AUTHORITY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAM FERENBACH
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach ("R&R") that Plaintiff's pro se complaint be dismissed with leave to amend. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff had until December 22, 2016 to file an objection. (Id.) 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 Ferenbach's R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and the Complaint, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 7) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 8) is dismissed with leave to amend.
If Plaintiff chooses to file an amended complaint he is advised that an amended complaint supersedes the original complaint and, thus, the amended complaint must be complete in itself. See Hal Roach Studios, Inc. v. Richard Feiner & Co., Inc., 896 F.2d 1542, 1546 (9th Cir. 1989) (holding that "[t]he fact that a party was named in the original complaint is irrelevant; an amended pleading supersedes the original"); see also Lacey v. Maricopa Cnty., 693 F.3d 896, 928 (9th Cir. 2012) (holding that for claims dismissed with prejudice, a plaintiff is not required to reallege such claims in a subsequent amended complaint to preserve them for appeal). Plaintiff's amended complaint must contain all claims, defendants, and factual allegations that Plaintiff wishes to pursue in this lawsuit.
If Plaintiff wishes to file an amended complaint, Plaintiff must do so by Feburary 13, 2017. Plaintiff's failure to timely file an amended complaint may result in dismissal of this action with prejudice.
DATED THIS 12th day of January 2017.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE