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