Walsh v. Williams

D. Nevada

Walsh v. Williams

DecidedFebruary 28, 2022

Docket2:20-cv-01714

StatusUnknown

This text of Walsh v. Williams (Walsh v. Williams) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Walsh v. Williams, (D. Nev. 2022).

Pincite

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Robert J. Walsh, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-01714-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER Brian Williams, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 16), of United 10 States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, which states that Plaintiff Robert J. Walsh’s 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 12 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 13 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 14 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 15 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 16 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 17 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 18 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 19 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, 20 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 21 judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United 22 States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 24 ECF No. 16) (setting a February 25, 2022, deadline for objections). 25 // 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 16), is 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert J. Walsh’s Application to Procced 5 in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 4), is DENIED. Plaintiff is required to pay the full $400 filing 6 fee if he wishes to proceed with this case. 7 Dated this __2_8_ day of February, 2022. 8 9 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Robert J. Walsh, ) 4 ) Plaintiff, ) Case No.: 2:20-cv-01714-GMN-NJK 5 vs. ) 6 ) ORDER Brian Williams, et al., ) 7 ) Defendants. ) 8 ) 9 Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 16), of United 10 States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, which states that Plaintiff Robert J. Walsh’s 11 application to proceed in forma pauperis be denied. 12 A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a 13 United States Magistrate Judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1-4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); 14 D. Nev. R. IB 3-2. Upon the filing of such objections, the Court must make a de novo 15 determination of those portions to which objections are made. Id. The Court may accept, reject, 16 or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the Magistrate Judge. 17 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); D. Nev. R. IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, the Court 18 is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 19 objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)). Indeed, 20 the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate 21 judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See, e.g., United 22 States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1122 (9th Cir. 2003). 23 Here, no objections were filed, and the deadline to do so has passed. (See Min. Order, 24 ECF No. 16) (setting a February 25, 2022, deadline for objections). 25 // 1 Accordingly, 2 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation, (ECF No. 16), is 3 ADOPTED in full. 4 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff Robert J. Walsh’s Application to Procced 5 in forma pauperis, (ECF No. 4), is DENIED. Plaintiff is required to pay the full $400 filing 6 fee if he wishes to proceed with this case. 7 Dated this __2_8_ day of February, 2022. 8 9 ___________________________________ Gloria M. Navarro, District Judge 10 United States District Court 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Walsh v. Williams, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walsh-v-williams-nvd-2022.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack