1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 BILL LIETZKE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00560-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CITY OF BIRMINGHAM, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Bill Lietzke brings this action under

. Before the Court is 13 the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States 14 Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 3), recommending that the Court deny 15 Plaintiff’s in forma pauperis application (“IFP Application”), and dismiss this case, 16 because he was previously declared a vexatious litigant, and did not obtain leave from 17 the Court before filing this case. Plaintiff had until November 5, 2019 to file an objection. 18 To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, 19 the Court adopts the R&R and will dismiss this case. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 22 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 23 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 24 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Where a party fails to object, however, 25 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 26 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth 27 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 1 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 2 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 3 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D.

) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 5 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 6 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 7 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 9 objection was filed). 10 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Baldwin’s recommendation to deny 11 Plaintiff’s IFP application and dismiss this case, the Court will conduct a de novo review 12 to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Baldwin found that Judge Mahan 13 previously deemed Plaintiff a vexatious litigant, requiring him to obtain leave from the 14 Chief Judge before filing any new case—but he did not do so here—so his case must be 15 dismissed. (ECF No. 3.) Having reviewed the R&R and the Complaint, the Court agrees 16 with Judge Baldwin. 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 18 No. 3) is accepted and adopted in full. 19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF 20 No. 1) is denied. 21 It is further ordered this case is dismissed in its entirety. 22 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 23 close this case. 24 DATED THIS 13th day of November 2019. 25

26 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27