Sullivan v. Nevada Department of Administration et al

Filing 6

ORDER Adopting in its entirety 3 Magistrate Judge Koppe's Report and Recommendation. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court file the [1-1] Complaint. The Complaint is Dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall close the case. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 7/22/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
8

LEONARD P. SULLIVAN, SR.,

9
10
11

2:13-CV-120 JCM (NJK)

Plaintiff(s),
v.

12

NEVADA DEPT OF
ADMINISTRATION, et al.,

13

Defendant(s).

14
15
16
17

ORDER
Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Koppe
dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice. (Doc. # 3). Plaintiff objected. (Docs. # 4 & 5).

18

Plaintiff alleges a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against Nevada Department of Administration and

19

Georganne W. Bradley. (Doc. # 1-1). Plaintiff’s claims against Bradley stem from Bradley’s actions

20

as a hearing officer for the Nevada Department of Administration for plaintiff’s worker’s

21

compensation case following a work-related accident at the MGM-Bellagio.

22

Magistrate Judge Koppe screened the in forma pauperis complaint. The magistrate judge

23

dismissed the § 1983 claim against Bradley in her role as a hearing officer under the doctrine of

24

judicial immunity. The magistrate also dismissed the § 1983 claim against Nevada Department of

25

Administration under the Eleventh Amendment.

26

The magistrate judge recommends dismissing the complaint with prejudice because it is clear

27

that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. (See doc. # 4). Plaintiff timely

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

filed an objection. (See docs. # 5 & 6). Plaintiff’s objection concedes that he cannot seek monetary

2

damages against Bradley and clarifies that the Nevada Department of Administration was never

3

intended to be a named defendant. However, plaintiff’s objection does not actually object to any

4

portion of the magistrate’s report and recommendation.

5

I.

Legal standard

6

A party may file specific written objections to the findings and recommendations of a United

7

States magistrate judge made pursuant to Local Rule IB 1–4. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); LR IB 3–2.

8

Upon the filing of such objections, the district court must make a de novo determination of those

9

portions of the report to which objections are made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)©; LR IB 3–2(b). The

10

district court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

11

made by the magistrate judge. Id.

12

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all

13

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

14

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

15

judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v.

16

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the

17

district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see

18

also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F.Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s

19

decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

20

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

21

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this court may

22

accept the recommendation without review. See e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.Supp.2d at 1226 (accepting,

23

without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

24

II.

Discussion

25

This court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt

26

the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and the record,

27

the court finds plaintiff’s complaint is deficient for the reasons stated by the magistrate judge. The

28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-

1

court further finds that the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured by amendment.

2

III.

Conclusion

3

Accordingly,

4

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge Koppe’s

5

report and recommendation dismissing plaintiff’s case with prejudice (doc. # 3) be, and the same

6

hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court filed the complaint (doc. # 1-1).

8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the complaint be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED

9

with prejudice.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the clerk of the court close the case.

11

DATED July 22, 2013.

12
13
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-3-