Opinion
Case No. 3:18-cv-00015-MMD-WGC
03-01-2018
MARGARET-ILENE PULLEN, Plaintiff, v. A. BIGGAR H PICKARD, 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. 3) ("R&R") relating to plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP Application") (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff filed her objection on February 13, 2018 ("Objection"). (ECF No. 4.)
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).
The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Plaintiff's IFP Application. Plaintiff does not object to this recommendation. Accordingly, the Court will accept the recommendation.
The Magistrate Judge recommends dismissing the complaint with prejudice because it appears that Plaintiff may be trying to appeal a decision issued by the Nevada Supreme Court. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff's objection is essentially a copy of the document filed as the complaint in this case. (Compare ECF No. 1-1 with ECF No. 4.) The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge. To the extent Plaintiff wishes to appeal the Nevada Supreme Court's decision, her recourse is to file a petition for writ of certiorari with the United States Supreme Court.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 3) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted.
It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
It is further ordered that the complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case.
DATED THIS 1st day of March 2018.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE