Saterstad et al v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 11

ORDER adopting 4 Report and Recommendation; Plaintiff's claims against the state of Nevada and the prosecutors at the district attorney's office be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/23/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7
8

MARTIN SATERSTAD and
RICHARD SATERSTAD,

ORDER
Plaintiff(s),

9
10
11

Case No. 2:16-CV-1702 JCM (GWF)

v.
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendant(s).

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

Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation. (ECF
No. 4). No objections have been filed, and the deadline for filing objections has since passed.
This court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects
to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo
determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at
all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149
(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United
States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review
employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no
objections were made).

1

Magistrate Judge Foley recommended that plaintiff’s claims against the state of Nevada

2

and the prosecutors at the district attorney’s office be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state

3

a claim upon which relief can be granted.

4

recommendation. Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

5

determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the

6

recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to adopt the

7

magistrate judge’s findings.1

8

Accordingly,

9

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge

10

Foley’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 4) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its

11

entirety.

12
13
14

Plaintiff has not objected to the report and

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s claims against the state of Nevada and the
prosecutors at the district attorney’s office be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.
DATED January 23, 2018.

15

__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

Magistrate Judge Foley’s order also addressed plaintiff’s motion to proceed in forma
pauperis. Thereafter, plaintiff filed an amended motion to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF Nos.
6, 7), and Magistrate Judge Foley granted the amended motion (ECF No. 8). Accordingly, the
court need not address those issues in this order.
1

-2-