1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 TONY HUCKBOTTOM, Case No. 3:18-cv-00331-MMD-CBC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 RENO JUSTICE COURT, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Tony Huckbottom, who is in the custody of the Nevada Department of 13 Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this action under

. Before the Court is the 14 Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 6), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s in forma 16 pauperis application, but then file his complaint and dismiss it because Plaintiff attempts 17 to sue entities entitled to Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. Plaintiff had until 18 August 28, 2019 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 19 For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will dismiss this 20 case. 21 /// 22

23 1Because the Court received a returned copy of the R&R with the notation “Name and Inmate No. don’t match” (ECF No. 7), the Court attempted to send another copy of 24 the R&R to Plaintiff (ECF No. 8), but that attempt was also unsuccessful (ECF No. 9). Notwithstanding the Court’s efforts, it is ultimately Plaintiff’s responsibility to keep the 25 Court apprised of his address. See LR IA 3-1 (“An attorney or pro se party must immediately file with the court written notification of any change of mailing address, email 26 address, telephone number, or facsimile number. The notification must include proof of 27 service on each opposing party or the party’s attorney. Failure to comply with this rule may result in the dismissal of the action, entry of default judgment, or other sanctions as 1 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 2 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 3 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 4 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 5 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Where a party fails to object, however, 6 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 7 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth 8 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 9 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 10 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 11 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 12 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D.

) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 14 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 15 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 16 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 18 objection was filed). 19 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Carry’s recommendation to dismiss 20 Plaintiff’s case, the Court will conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the 21 R&R. Judge Carry found that Plaintiff “cannot raise

claims against the 22 State of Nevada or the Reno Justice Court based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign 23 immunity.” (ECF No. 6 at 3.) Having reviewed the R&R and the Complaint, the Court 24 agrees with Judge Carry. 25 It is therefore ordered that Judge Carry’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 26 6) is accepted and adopted in full. 27 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to file Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). 2 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed, with 3 prejudice, and without leave to amend, as amendment would be futile. 4 The Clerk of Court is further directed to enter judgment in accordance with this 5 order and close this case. 6 DATED THIS 1st day of October 2019. 7

8 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27