Wright v. Frayn et al

Filing 14

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 13 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety; and Plaintiff's pending motions (ECF Nos. 11 , 12 ) are denied without prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/27/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

BRIAN WRIGHT,

Case No. 2:17-cv-01844-MMD-CWH
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
KIMBERLY FRAYN, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CARL W. HOFFMAN, JR.

12
Defendants.
13
14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

15

Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 13) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s motion for

16

summary judgment (ECF No. 11) and motion for default judgment (ECF No. 12)

17

(collectively, “Motions”). Judge Hoffman recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motions without

18

prejudice as they are premature—Plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis and

19

Complaint have not been addressed. (ECF No. 13.) Plaintiff had until August 23, 2018 to

20

object. (Id.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

21

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

22

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

23

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

24

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

25

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

26

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

27

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

28

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

1

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See

2

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard

3

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

4

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

5

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

6

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

7

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

8

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

9

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

10

which no objection was filed).

11

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

12

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Hoffman’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R

13

and the filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

14

R&R in full.

15

It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and

16

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carl W. Hoffman, Jr. (ECF No. 13) is accepted

17

and adopted in its entirety.

18
19
20

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s pending motions (ECF Nos. 11, 12) are denied
without prejudice.
DATED THIS 27th day of August 2018.

21
22
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2