Filed: Feb. 12, 2019
Latest Update: Feb. 12, 2019
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R) from the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned, recommending that the Petition and request for injunctive relief in this case both be denied. (Doc. 14). Neither party filed objections to the R&R. 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). It is "clear that the d
Summary: ORDER JAMES A. TEILBORG , Senior District Judge . Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R) from the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned, recommending that the Petition and request for injunctive relief in this case both be denied. (Doc. 14). Neither party filed objections to the R&R. 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). It is "clear that the di..
More
ORDER
JAMES A. TEILBORG, Senior District Judge.
Pending before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R) from the Magistrate Judge to whom this case was assigned, recommending that the Petition and request for injunctive relief in this case both be denied. (Doc. 14). Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
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). It is "clear that the district judge must review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but not otherwise." United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (en banc) (emphasis in original); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) ("Following Reyna-Tapia, this Court concludes that de novo review of factual and legal issues is required if objections are made, `but not otherwise.'"); Klamath Siskiyou Wildlands Ctr. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 589 F.3d 1027, 1032 (9th Cir. 2009) (the district court "must review de novo the portions of the [Magistrate Judge's] recommendations to which the parties object."). District courts are 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) (emphasis added); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) ("the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.").
Because neither party objected,
IT IS ORDERED that the R&R (Doc. 14) is accepted. The Petition and request for injunctive relief (Doc. 1) is denied. This case is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction, with prejudice,1 and the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.2
