Opinion
2:07-cv-00582-RCJ-GWF.
August 18, 2009
ORDER
On June 18, 2009, Magistrate Judge George Foley, Jr. ("the Magistrate Judge") issued a Report and Recommendation ("R R") that Plaintiff Jennifer M. Owens's complaint should be dismissed. (#37). Now before the Court are Owens's objections to the R R. (#38). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the R R is AFFIRMED and ADOPTED.
BACKGROUND
In August 2004, Owens's husband, Cory L. Owens, died while in the custody of the Nye County Sheriff's Department. In August 2006, Owens filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Nye County, Town of Pahrump, and Nye County Sheriff's Department (collectively, "the County Defendants"). According to her complaint, employees of the Sheriff's Department delivered a fatal blow to Cory Owens's head while he was in their custody.
On May 3, 2007, the County Defendants removed this action to federal court under federal question jurisdiction. Since she filed her complaint, Owens has been represented by a half-dozen attorneys. (#38). Most recently, her attorney, James J. Butman, moved to withdraw as counsel. (#28). On September 26, 2008, the Magistrate Judge granted Mr. Butman's motion to withdraw. (#29). The Magistrate Judge also ordered Owens to advise the Court whether Owens intended to retain new counsel or proceed in proper person. The Magistrate Judge gave Owens a deadline of October 24, 2008, to advise the Court accordingly.
On February 11, 2009, after the parties failed to file a joint pretrial order as required under LR 26-1(e)(5), the Magistrate Judge ordered the parties to file a joint pretrial order by February 20, 2009. (#30). The County Defendants were unable to obtain Owens's cooperation, and so they requested a status conference.
On March 2, 2009, the Magistrate Judge conducted a status conference. Owens did not appear at the status conference. As a result, the Magistrate Judge issued a show-cause order directing Owens to show cause why her complaint should not be dismissed for failure to respond to the County Defendants in preparing a joint pretrial order and for her failure to attend the status conference. (#35). The show-cause order gave Owens a deadline of March 17, 2009.
Owens failed to comply with the order to show cause. Three months later, after Owens had failed to submit any documents or notices with the Court, the Magistrate Judge prepared the R R, in which he recommended dismissal of Owens's complaint. (#37). On July 2, 2009, Owens submitted a letter to the Magistrate Judge. (#38). In her letter, she objects to the R R and represents that she is "not dropping this matter." (#38).
LEGAL STANDARD
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). Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), if a party makes a timely objection to the magistrate judge's recommendation, then this Court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." District courts are not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("[T]he court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [R R] to which objection is made."). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then this Court may accept the recommendation without review.DISCUSSION
After considering the record, the Magistrate Judge's R R, and the parties' objections and responses to the R R, this Court holds that dismissal is proper in this case. Although Owens filed something in response to the R R, it does not constitute "objections" as contemplated by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Owens's letter merely names the six attorneys she has previously hired to represent her in this matter and states that she is looking once more for legal counsel. These representations do not qualify as "objections" to the R R. 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).
Moreover, Owens has enjoyed ample time to litigate her case. Despite having a half-dozen attorneys represent her in this matter, she has made no substantive progress on any of her claims.
For these reasons, the Court AFFIRMS and ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's R R.