Opinion
Case No. 3:16-cv-00112-MMD-VPC
06-08-2017
MONROE JONES, Plaintiff, v. BRIAN WARD, et al., Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOK
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) ("R&R"), recommending dismissal with prejudice. Plaintiff had until June 1, 2017, to file an objection. (ECF No. 42.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.
The R&R (ECF No. 42) and the last order entered by the Court (ECF No. 41) that were mailed to Plaintiff were returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 43.) --------
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 Cooke's R&R. The R&R recommends that this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff's failure to comply with LR IA 3-1. LR IA 3-1 requires pro se parties like Plaintiff to immediately notify the Court of any change in Plaintiff's contact information. To date, Plaintiff has not notified the Court of his current mailing address. The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's recommendation.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that this action is dismissed with prejudice.
It is further ordered that the Clerk close this case.
DATED THIS 8th day of June 2017.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE