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)

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-