Saterstad et al v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 14

ORDER adopting 12 Report and Recommendation; FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs' Fifth Amendment due process claim be, and the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/2/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
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 (“R&R”). (ECF No. 12). 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 recommends that plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment due process claim 2 be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF 3 No. 12). 4 Plaintiffs have not objected to the report and recommendation. Nevertheless, this court 5 finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the 6 recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying 7 briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to adopt the magistrate judge’s findings. 8 Accordingly, 9 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge 10 Foley’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 12) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its 11 entirety. 12 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiffs’ Fifth Amendment due process claim be, and 13 the same hereby is, DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can 14 be granted. 15 16 17 DATED April 2, 2018. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge -2-

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?