Opinion
Case No. 2:17-cv-01996-MMD-CWH
09-07-2017
FEDERAL NATIONAL MORTGAGE ASSOCIATION, Plaintiff, v. CHANDRA PLOUGH, Defendant.
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. 3) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1). In his order (ECF No. 3) the Magistrate Judge granted the application to proceed in forma pauperis and recommended that the case be remanded to state court. Plaintiff had until August 10, 2017, to file an objection. 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. Upon reviewing the R&R and filings in this case, 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. 3) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that this case be remanded to state court.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to remand (ECF No. 6) is denied as moot.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 7th day of September 2017.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE