Godwin v. Senior Garden Apartments et al

Filing 189

ORDER - Judge Albregt's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 180 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Defendant Clark County is dismissed from the entirety of this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/21/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 189 Filed 01/21/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

VICTORIA-JOY GODWIN,
Plaintiff,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA
ORDER

v.
SENIOR GARDEN APARTMENTS, et al.,
Defendants.

11
12

Pro se Plaintiff Victoria-Joy Godwin filed a fourth amended complaint against

13

numerous defendants, including Clark County. (ECF No. 87 at 15.) Before the Court is

14

the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States

15

Magistrate Judge Daniel J. Albregts (ECF No. 180), recommending that Defendant Clark

16

County’s request for dismissal in their motion for an order quashing service (ECF No.

17

135) be granted, and that Clark County be dismissed from this action. Plaintiff had until

18

January 19, 2021 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

19

For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and dismiss Clark

20

County from the entirety of this case.

21

The 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

fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to

24

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas

25

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

26

1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and

27

recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the

28

findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory

Case 2:17-cv-02178-MMD-DJA Document 189 Filed 01/21/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no

2

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

3

Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is

4

satisfied Judge Albregts did not clearly err. Here, Judge Albregts recommends that Clark

5

County be dismissed from this action as Plaintiff’s fourth amended complaint fails to state

6

a claim against Clark County upon which relief can be granted. (ECF No. 180 at 2.) The

7

Court agrees with Judge Albregts. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case,

8

the Court will adopt the R&R in full.

9
10
11
12
13

It is therefore ordered that Judge Albregts’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 180) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendant Clark County is dismissed from the entirety of
this case.
DATED THIS 21st Day of January 2021.

14
15
16
17

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2