2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 R. WAYNE JOHNSON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00395-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 DEPARTMENT OF VETERAN AFFAIRS, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 Plaintiff R. Wayne Johnson, an incarcerated person in the custody of the Texas 13 Department of Criminal Justice, has submitted a complaint for writ of mandamus (ECF No. 14 1-1). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 7) (“R&R”) recommending dismissal of Plaintiff’s action 16 without prejudice. Plaintiff had until January 16, 2020, to object to the R&R. To date, no 17 objection to the R&R has been filed.1 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 fails 23 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 24 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also 25 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 26 27

28 1 Plaintiff filed a document titled “Amended Complaint” (ECF No. 8) which does not address the R&R. 1 || of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 2 || which no objections were made); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) 3 || (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 4 || the record in order to accept the recommendation’). 5 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 6 || determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Baldwin recommended dismissal of □□□□□□□□□□□ 7 || action without prejudice because Plaintiff did not pay the full filing fee or apply to proceed 8 || in forma pauperis. (ECF No. 7). On two separate occasions, Judge Baldwin directed 9 || Plaintiff to complete the in forma pauperis application or pay the full filing fee. (ECF Nos. 10 || 4, 6.) Plaintiff was given until December 8, 2019 to comply (ECF No. 6), which Plaintiff 11 || failed to do. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying record, this Court finds good cause 12 || to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full. 13 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation 14 || of Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 7) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. 15 It is further ordered that the Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 1-8) is 16 || dismissed without prejudice. 17 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 18 || close this case. 19 20 || DATED THIS 22"9 day of January 2020. 21 22 A Cb) MIRANDA M. DU 23 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28