Muric-Dorado v. LVMPD

Opinion

RAMON MURIC-DORADO, Case No. 2:18-cv-01184-JCM-EJY

Plaintiff ORDER

v.

LVMPD et al.,

Defendants

Presently before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation (“R&R”). (ECF No. 62). Judge Youchah recommends dismissing defendant “Karla” without prejudice. (Id.). Plaintiffs failed to identify defendant with a last name and “no further information has been provided . . . despite substantial time and opportunity to do so.” (ECF Nos. 31 & 59). 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). 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). Nevertheless, this court conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and attendant circumstances, this court finds good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings in full. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Youchah’s R&R (ECF No. 62) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant Karla is hereby DISMISSED with prejudice. DATED July 13, 2020. ©. Atala UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-