Skinner v. Reed

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 20, 2023
• Docket: 3:22-cv-00352
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RODERICK SKINNER, Case No. 3:22-cv-00352-ART-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 EDWARD T. REED, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Roderick Skinner brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 Plaintiff failed to submit an in forma pauperis application, the required financial 13 certificate, or his filing fee for this action. Judge Denney ordered Plaintiff to 14 submit the documents by September 30, 2022 or the Court would recommend 15 dismissal of the action. (ECF No. 5). Since this order, Plaintiff has not undertaken 16 any of the required actions. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation 17 (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney 18 (ECF No. 6), recommending the Court dismiss Plaintiff’s action without 19 prejudice. Plaintiff had until October 18, 2022 to file an objection. To date, no 20 objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the 21 Court adopts the R&R, and will dismiss Plaintiff’s action without prejudice. 22 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 23 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 24 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 25 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 26 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 28 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 1 || or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 2 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 3 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 4 || record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 5 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 6 || and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney ordered 7 || Plaintiff to either submit an in forma pauperis application with the required 8 || financial certificate or pay the filing fee. (ECF No. 5). Plaintiff failed to do so. 9 || Judge Denney therefore recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiffs case 10 || without prejudice. (ECF No. 6 at 1). The Court agrees with Judge Denney. Having 11 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in 12 || full. 13 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 14 || (ECF No. 6) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 It is further ordered that this action be dismissed without prejudice. 16 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. 17 18 DATED THIS 20t® Day of July 2023. 19 20 Awe jlossd Wb 21 ANNE R.TRAUM ———Ci*” 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23 24 25 26 27 28