Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 150

ORDER Accepting and Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach's 149 Report and Recommendation. Defendant Nevada Property 1, LLC's 145 Second Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is Granted.The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment dismissing Nevada Property 1, LLC with prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

CHENTILE GOODMAN,

Case No. 2:11-cv-01447-MMD-VCF
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
12
13

LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CAM FERENBACH

Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

16

Judge Cam Ferenbach (dkt. no. 149) (“R&R”), submitted on May 12, 2014, relating to

17

Defendant Nevada Property 1, LLC’s Second Motion for Determination of Good Faith

18

Settlement (dkt. no. 145), Plaintiff’s Limited Joinder (dkt. no. 146), LVMPD Defendants’

19

Limited Response to Plaintiff’s Limited Joinder (dkt. no. 147) and Plaintiff’s Reply to

20

LMPD Defendants’ Limited Response to Plaintiff’s Limited Joinder (dkt. no. 148). The

21

parties had until May 29, 2014, to file objections. No objection to the R&R has been filed.

22

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

23

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

24

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

25

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

26

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

27

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

28

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

1

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

2

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See

3

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard

4

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

5

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

6

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

7

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

8

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

9

the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at

10

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no

11

objection was filed).

12

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

13

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach’s R&R. Upon reviewing

14

the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate

15

Judge’s R&R in full.

16
17
18
19

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the R&R of Magistrate Judge
Cam Ferenbach (dkt. no.149) be accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that Defendant Nevada Property 1, LLC’s Second Motion for
Determination of Good Faith Settlement (dkt. no. 145) is granted.

20

It is further ordered that, upon an express finding that there is no just reason for

21

delay, the Clerk is directed to enter final judgment dismissing Nevada Property 1, LLC

22

from this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Defendant Nevada

23

Property 1, LLC is discharged from all liability for contribution and for equitable indemnity

24

to any other tortfeasor pursuant to NRS § 17.245.

25

DATED THIS 30th day of October 2014.

26
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2