Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-00350-MMD-WGC
10-01-2014
ERIC MESI, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA FORECLOSURE MEDIATION PROGRAM, Defendant.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM GL. COBB
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 5) ("R&R") relating to plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (dkt. no. 1) and pro se initial filing titled: "Expunge Certificate and lien releast" which also references an ongoing bankruptcy case, 12-05075-btb (dkt. no. 1-1). Plaintiff had until September 11, 2014, to file an objection. 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 Magistrate Judge recommended granting Plaintiff's application for in forma pauperis because he has demonstrated his montly expenses exceed his income. The Magistrate Judge further recommended that the Court dismiss the complaint because the relief he seeks — expungement of a mediation certificate entered in connection with the State of Neavda Mediation Foreclosure Program — is not available before this Court. Upon reviewing the R&R and Plaintiff's filings, 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 William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 5) be accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that plaintiff's application to proceed in form pauperis (dkt. no. 1) is granted; plaintiff shall not be required to pay an initial filing fee.
It is further ordered that dkt. no. 1-1 be sealed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 5.2, because it contains a full social security number of a person who is not the plaintiff.
It is further ordered that this action be dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 1st day of October 2014.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE