Poochigian v. Steinheimer

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JACOB POOCHIGIAN, Case No. 3:18-cv-00512-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 CONNIE STEINHEIMER, et. al.,

10 Defendants.

12 Pro Se Plaintiff Jacob Poochigian, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada 13 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 14 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge 15 William G. Cobb recommending that the Court dismiss this action for failure to file the 16 required financial certificate or pay the filing fee, and for failure to submit an amended 17 complaint. (ECF No. 7.) Plaintiff had until March 30, 2020, to file an objection. (See id.) To 18 date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the 19 Court adopts the R&R and dismisses this action in its entirety. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 22 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 23 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 24 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 25 to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 26 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 27 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 28 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both 1 || parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. 2 || R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy 3 || itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 4 || recommendation’). 5 Nevertheless, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept 6 || the R&R. Judge Cobb notes that the Court directed Plaintiff to file the financial certificate 7 || required for inmates seeking to proceed in forma pauperis or to pay the filing fee. (ECF 8 || No. 7 at 1; ECF No. 6 at 2.) Judge Cobb also explains that because Plaintiff did not appear 9 || to state any claims upon which relief could be granted, the Court gave Plaintiff 30 days to 10 || submit an amended complaint. (ECF No. 7 at 1; ECF No. 6 at 2-3.) As of the date of this 11 || order, Plaintiff has failed to take these actions. Therefore, Judge Cobb recommends that 12 || this action be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 7 at 2.) Upon reviewing the R&R and 13 || the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge Cobb’s recommendation 14 || in full. 15 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16 || 7) is adopted in its entirety. 17 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 18 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order 19 || and close this case. 20 DATED THIS 31* day of March 2020. 21 _ 22 {GQ 23 OT MIRANDA M. DU 24 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28