From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Williams v. Smiles Today Dental

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Mar 27, 2017
Case No. 2:14-CV-1014 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 2:14-CV-1014 JCM (CWH)

03-27-2017

DEONDRE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff(s), v. SMILES TODAY DENTAL, Defendant(s).


ORDER

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Hoffman's report and recommendation that plaintiff Deondre Williams' case be dismissed for failure to file an amended complaint by an August 13, 2014, deadline. (ECF No. 4). No objection has been filed.

This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, 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, 1122 (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.").

This court agrees that a multi-year violation of a deadline to file an amended complaint is adequate grounds for dismissal of the case without prejudice; furthermore, the balance of the five Ferdik factors clearly weighs in favor of dismissal. See Ferdik v. Bonzelet, 963 F.2d 1258, 1260 (9th Cir. 1992); see also (ECF No. 4). Additionally, plaintiff was warned that a failure to comply with the magistrate judge's order may lead to the dismissal of his case. See (ECF Nos. 2, 4).

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman (ECF No. 4) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety.

The clerk shall enter judgment accordingly and close the case.

DATED March 27, 2017.

/s/ James C. Mahan

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Williams v. Smiles Today Dental

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Mar 27, 2017
Case No. 2:14-CV-1014 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2017)
Case details for

Williams v. Smiles Today Dental

Case Details

Full title:DEONDRE WILLIAMS, Plaintiff(s), v. SMILES TODAY DENTAL, Defendant(s).

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Mar 27, 2017

Citations

Case No. 2:14-CV-1014 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Mar. 27, 2017)