Johnson et al v. Bernstein et al

Filing 150

ORDER that #103 Report and Recommendation is Accepted and Adopted. Defendant Michael Scheidler is accordingly DISMISSED, and #78 Motion to Quash and #79 Motion to Dismiss, are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 1/20/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

Scott Johnson, et al.,

8
9
10

Case No. 2:13-cv-00641-RFB-NJK
Plaintiffs,

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION

v.
Jonathan Bernstein, et al.,

11

Defendants.

12
13

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

14

Nancy J. Koppe, ECF No. 103, recommending 1) that Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-opposition, ECF

15

No. 97, be construed as a Notice of Dismissal regarding nominal Defendant Michael Scheidler

16

pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(1)(A), 2) that the Motion to Quash, ECF No. 78, be denied

17

as moot, and 3) that the Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 79, be denied as moot. No objection was

18

filed to Magistrate Judge Koppe’s Report and Recommendation in accordance with Local Rule

19

LR IB 3-2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

20

See also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

21

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

22

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LR IB 3-2(b). If a

23

party timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court “shall

24

make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which

25

objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); LR IB 3-2(b). If a party fails to object, however, the

26

court is not required to conduct any review at all. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985);

27

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“[T]he district judge must

28

review the magistrate judge's findings and recommendations de novo if objection is made, but

1

not otherwise. . . . Neither the Constitution nor the statute requires a district judge to review, de

2

novo, findings and recommendations that the parties themselves accept as correct.”). Thus,

3

absent an objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, a court may accept the

4

recommendation without review.

5

Here, it has been eight months since the Report and Recommendation was issued and no

6

objection has been filed, which relieves this Court of its obligation to review Judge Koppe’s

7

Report and Recommendation. However, the Court has reviewed the matter nonetheless and

8

finds that Plaintiff’s Notice of Non-opposition, ECF No. 97, is properly construed as a Notice of

9

Dismissal pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 41(a)(1)(A) and that Michael Scheidler is

10
11

consequently properly dismissed.
IT

IS

THEREFORE

ORDERED

that

the

Magistrate

Judge’s

Report

and

12

Recommendation entered May 7, 2014, ECF No. 103, is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED.

13

Defendant Michael Scheidler is accordingly DISMISSED, and the Motions to Quash and to

14

Dismiss, ECF Nos. 78, 79, are DENIED as moot.

15

DATED: January 20, 2015.

16
17

RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRIST JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

-2-