1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 7 * * * 8 9 KATHERINE E. MELTON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00298-MMD-WGC

10 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 11 OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE ALLERGAN INC, et al., WILLIAM G. COBB 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 5) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s application to proceed 16 in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) and pro se Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). The Court 17 overrules Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 6) and adopts the R&R in full. 18 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 20 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 22 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any 24 issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). 25 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 26 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. 27 See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the 1 || recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 2 ||

(D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in 3 || Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any 4 || issue that is not the subject of an objection”). Thus, if there is no objection to a 5 || magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation 6 || without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

(accepting, without 7 || review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed). 8 Magistrate Judge Cobb recommends dismissing the Complaint without prejudice 9 || because Plaintiff does not assert any specific claim against any of the named 10 || defendants. (ECF No. 5 at 4.) In addition, the Complaint appears to allege that the 11 || events giving rise to Plaintiff's injury—her breast implants—occurred in Bremerton, 12 || Washington and not Nevada. (ECF No. 1-1.) In her objection, Plaintiff attached medical 13 || records which appear to support that the procedures were in Bremerton. (ECF No. 6-1.) 14 || As Judge Cobb noted in the R&R, it does not appear that the Court would have 15 || personal jurisdiction over the named Defendants. Plaintiff's lawsuit should be filed in the 16 || state where the events giving rise to the injury occurred. 17 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 18 || Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 5) is accepted and 19 || adopted in its entirety. 20 It is ordered that Plaintiff's application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1) 21 || is granted; Plaintiff will not be required to pay an initial fee. 22 It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 23 It is further ordered that the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. 24 The Clerk is directed to close this case. 25 DATED THIS 13" day of September 2019. 26 “A

MIRANDA M. DU 28 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE