Opinion
Case No. 3:18-cv-00512-MMD-WGC
03-31-2020
JACOB POOCHIGIAN, Plaintiff, v. CONNIE STEINHEIMER, et. al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pro Se Plaintiff Jacob Poochigian, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb recommending that the Court dismiss this action for failure to file the required financial certificate or pay the filing fee, and for failure to submit an amended complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff had until March 30, 2020, to file an objection. (See id.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and dismisses this action in its entirety.
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); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) ("De novo review of the magistrate judges' findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.") (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation").
Nevertheless, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept the R&R. Judge Cobb notes that the Court directed Plaintiff to file the financial certificate required for inmates seeking to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 7 at 1; ECF No. 6 at 2.) Judge Cobb also explains that because Plaintiff did not appear to state any claims upon which relief could be granted, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to submit an amended complaint. (ECF No. 7 at 1; ECF No. 6 at 2-3.) As of the date of this order, Plaintiff has failed to take these actions. Therefore, Judge Cobb recommends that this action be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 7 at 2.) Upon reviewing the R&R and the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge Cobb's recommendation in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7) is adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice.
The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case.
DATED THIS 31st day of March 2020.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE