Godwin v. Senior Garden Apartments et al
Filing
14
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE HOFFMAN. Plaintiff's motion for TRO ECF No. 7 and plaintiff's motions for judicial notice ECF Nos. 8 , 9 are denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/29/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
10
***
11
VICTORIA JOY GODWIN,
Case No. 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-CWH
Plaintiff,
12
v.
13
SENIOR GARDEN APPARTMENTS, et al.,
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
HOFFMAN
14
Defendants.
15
16
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
17
Judge Hoffman (ECF No. 13) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s motion for temporary
18
restraining order (“TRO Motion”) (ECF No. 7) and motions for judicial notice (ECF Nos.
19
8, 9). Plaintiff has until March 23, 2018 to file an objection. (ECF No. 13.) To date, no
20
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
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s TRO Motion for, inter alia,
12
Plaintiff’s failure to demonstrate likelihood of success on the merits or that a temporary
13
restraining order is needed to preserve the status quo. (ECF No. 13 at 2-3.) Having
14
reviewed the R&R and the filings in this case, the Court agrees with Judge Hoffman and
15
will adopt the R&R.
16
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
17
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman (ECF No. 13) is accepted and adopted
18
in its entirety.
19
20
21
22
23
It is ordered that plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 7) is
denied.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motions for judicial notice (ECF Nos. 8, 9) are
denied.
DATED THIS 29th day of March 2018.
24
25
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
26
27
28
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?