1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 5 SAN JOSE DIVISION 6 7 AUDREY L. KIMNER, Case No. 5:21-cv-06488-EJD 8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 v. 10 PETER HANN, et al., Re: Dkt. Nos. 18, 19 ll Defendants. 12 On February 2, 2022, Magistrate Judge DeMarchi issued a report and recommendation 5 13 advising that the undersigned deny Plaintiff Audrey Kimner’s motion to proceed in forma 14 || pauperis. See Dkt. No. 19. Plaintiff did not file any timely objections. Where a party fails to 3 15 object to a report and recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at a 16 || all... of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” See Thomas v. Arn,

, 149 3 17 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003). Because there is no 18 objection, the Court may accept the recommendation without review. Nevertheless, even after a 19 de novo review, the Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the report and recommendation in 20 || full. Therefore, Plaintiffs application to proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. Because 21 Plaintiff did not comply with Judge DeMarchi’s order to show cause, this action is dismissed with 22 || prejudice. The Clerk shall close the file. 23 IT IS SO ORDERED. 24 Dated: March 1, 2022 25 26 a0. EDWARD J. DAVILA 27 United States District Judge 28 || Case No.: 5:21-cv-06488-EJD ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION