Tripp v. Clark County et al

Filing 194

ORDER ADOPTING 164 Report and Recommendations Re: 147 Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint. Signed by Judge James C. Mahan on 1/11/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRS) Modified text on 1/11/2021 (SLD).

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6

***

7

JUSTIN L. TRIPP,

8

Plaintiff(s),

9
10

Case No. 2:17-CV-1964 JCM (BNW)
ORDER

v.
CLARK COUNTY, et al.,

11

Defendant(s).

12
13
14

Presently before the court is the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. (ECF No.
164).

15

The magistrate judge has recommended that this court deny plaintiff’s motion to amend to

16

the extent that he seeks to add a request for injunctive relief to “Remove the Hitching Post(s) from

17

CCDC booking areas, and alter policy to incorporate new training guidelines so that no future

18

inmate will be subjected to being attached to benches, walls, cells, bars, immovable objects, or any

19

other ‘Hitching Posts’ that CCDC may have been using wrongly” and a request for injunctive relief

20

to “Pay for any and all future surgeries or complications that may arise out of this surgery.” (ECF

21

Nos. 147-1, 164).

22

Defendants have filed an objection, (ECF No. 174), but it is unrelated to the magistrate

23

judge’s above-mentioned recommendation. Here, this court examines only this recommendation

24

in light of the pending motion for reconsideration on other aspects of the magistrate judge’s ruling.

25

(ECF No. 168).

26

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

27

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

28

to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo

James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

1

determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”

2

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

3

Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at

4

all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149

5

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

6

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

7

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

8

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

9

objections were made).

10

Nevertheless, this court has conducted a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the

11

recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and attendant

12

circumstances, this court finds good cause to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation in full.

13

(ECF No. 164).

14

Accordingly,

15

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that Judge Weksler’s R&R

16
17
18
19

(ECF No. 164) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED.
DATED January 11, 2021.
__________________________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
James C. Mahan
U.S. District Judge

-2-