Simpson v. Devore et al

Filing 5

ORDER that 3 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED in their entirety. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 2/2/17. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MMM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 *** 7 JASON K. SIMPSON, 8 9 10 Case No. 2:16-CV-2981 JCM (VCF) Plaintiff(s), ORDER v. S. DEVORE, et al., 11 Defendant(s). 12 13 Presently before the court is Magistrate Judge Ferenbach’s report and recommendation that 14 plaintiff Jason Simpson’s complaint be allowed to proceed. (ECF No. 3). No timely objections 15 16 17 have been filed to the report and recommendation. 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). If a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, however, the court is not required to conduct “any 18 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 19 149 (1985). 20 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 21 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United 22 States v. Reyna–Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 23 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 24 25 26 27 28 James C. Mahan U.S. District Judge objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna–Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Nevertheless, this court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the recommendation of the magistrate judge. 1 This court finds that the magistrate judge has correctly articulated and applied the standards 2 and holdings of Graham v. Connor, 490 U.S. 386, 396 (1989); United States v. Koon, 34 F.3d 3 1416, 1447 (9th Cir. 1994); and In re Crawford, 194 F.3d 954, 958 (9th Cir. 1999); see also (ECF 4 No. 3). Additionally, the magistrate judge’s characterization of plaintiff’s complaint against 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 defendant law enforcement officers is accurate. (ECF No. 3). Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Ferenbach (ECF No. 3) be, and the same hereby are, ADOPTED in their entirety. DATED February 2, 2017. __________________________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 12 13 14 15 16 17 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?