Martinez v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 14

ORDER that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation ECF No. 13 is accepted and adopted. It is further ordered that this action will proceed on Plaintiff's Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Michael Donovan only. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 07/11/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

MIGUEL A. MARTINEZ,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:15-cv-00883-MMD-NJK
Plaintiff,

v.
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
DEPARTMENT, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
NANCY J. KOPPE

Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe’s Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation) (ECF No. 13), regarding Plaintiff’s failure

17

to file a second amended complaint or otherwise respond to the Court’s Order filed on

18

January 20, 2017. (ECF No. 12.) The Court allowed Plaintiff to file any objections to the

19

Recommendation by July 7, 2017. (ECF No. 13.) To date, no objections have been filed.

20

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

21

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (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, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

4

Ariz. 2003) (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, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226

8

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

9

was filed).

10

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

11

to determine whether to adopt the R&R. In the screening order, the Court permitted

12

Plaintiff to proceed on his Fourth Amendment claim against Defendant Michael Donovan

13

and dismissed certain claims with leave to amend. (ECF No. 12.) The order warned

14

Plaintiff that if Plaintiff chose not to file a second amended complaint, the Magistrate Judge

15

would recommend that the action proceed only on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment. (Id. at 4-

16

5.) Plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint within the timeframe established in the

17

screening order. Thus, upon review of the R&R and filings in this case, the Court agrees

18

with the R&R and will adopt it in full.

19
20
21
22

It is hereby ordered that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 13) is accepted and adopted.
It is further ordered that this action will proceed on Plaintiff’s Fourth Amendment
claim against Defendant Michael Donovan only.

23
24

DATED THIS 11th day of July 2017.

25
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2