Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-00515-MMD-WGC
02-14-2017
RONALD MONROE, Plaintiff, v. CORRECTIONAL OFFICER WALKER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 35) ("R&R" or "Recommendation") relating to Defendant Correctional Officer Walker's motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 33.) Plaintiff had until November 27, 2016, 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 Cobb's R&R. The R&R recommends dismissal pursuant to LSR2-2 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) because Plaintiff has failed to notify the Court of his change of address and has not made contact with Defendant or the Court since he filed his last notice of change of address in October 2015. (ECF No. 24.) Plaintiff filed his previous notice of change of address on October 23, 2015, and Defendant's answer and the scheduling order that were served on Plaintiff in March 2016, were returned as undeliverable. (ECF Nos. 33-1, 32.) On November 28, 2016, Plaintiff notified the Court of his new address and stated that he has been paralyzed since May 10, 2016. (ECF No. 36.) Even accepting Plaintiff's representation as to his medical condition, Plaintiff does not explain his failure to update his address for months before May 2016, or to contact Defendant during that time. Upon reviewing the R&R and the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
The medical records attached to Plaintiff's notice indicate that he was admitted to Mountain's Edge Hospital on July 26, 2016 and discharged on August 17, 2016. (ECF No. 36-1.) He was admitted at a rehabilitation center on August 19 and 27, 2016. (Id.) --------
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 35) is accepted and adopted.
It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 14th day of February 2017.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE