Bailey v. State of Nevada et al
ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that 5 Magistrate Judge Foley's report and recommendation be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety. See Order for details. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 4/12/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 2:16-CV-2515 JCM (GWF)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Foley’s report and recommendation. (ECF
No. 5). Plaintiff Anthony Bailey filed an objection. (ECF No. 10). No responses 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).
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
Magistrate Judge Foley recommends that the court dismiss plaintiff’s causes of action
against the state of Nevada, the justices of the Nevada Supreme Court, Judge Valerie Adair, Steven
Wolfson, Adam Paul Laxalt, Thomas Groves, Laura Rehfeldt, Bethany Sanchez, and Nancy
Katafia, in her official capacity, for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (ECF
Plaintiff’s objection does not adequately raise and address objectionable issues with
Magistrate Judge Foley’s R&R. Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo
review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon
reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, the court finds that good cause appears to
adopt the magistrate judge’s findings.
Magistrate Judge Foley granted plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint against
defendants Welch and Katafia. (ECF No. 5). On November 17, 2017, plaintiff filed an amended
complaint. (ECF No. 11). The amended complaint references defendants other than defendants
Welch, and does not reference defendant Katafia. The court will dismiss plaintiff’s amended
complaint as to all defendants except Welch.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Magistrate Judge
Foley’s report and recommendation (ECF No. 5) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff’s causes of action against the state of Nevada,
the justices of the Nevada Supreme Court, Judge Valerie Adair, Steven Wolfson, Adam Paul
Laxalt, Thomas Groves, Laura Rehfeldt, Bethany Sanchez, and Nancy Katafia, in her official
capacity, be, and the same hereby are, DISMISSED with prejudice.
DATED April 12, 2018.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge
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?