Opinion
Case No. 3:17-cv-00123-MMD-VPC
03-12-2018
MICHAEL A. SWINTON, Plaintiff, v. GOODWILL INDUSTRIES, INC., Defendant.
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 27) ("R&R"). No objection to the R&R has been filed.
The R&R (ECF No. 27) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 28.) --------
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 Cooke's R&R. The R&R recommends that this action be dismissed with prejudice based upon Plaintiff's failure to notify the court of his change of address pursuant to LR IA 3-1. The R&R (ECF No. 27) that was mailed to Plaintiff was returned as undeliverable. (ECF No. 28.) Upon reviewing the R&R and records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 27) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that this action is dismissed for plaintiff's failure to comply with LR IA 3-1.
It is further ordered that Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 9) and motion to strike (ECF No. 16) are denied as moot.
The Clerk is directed to close this case.
DATED THIS 12th day of March 2018.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE