Brooks v. Gedney et al
Filing
20
ORDER accepting # 19 Report and Recommendation. ORDERED that Ds' # 15 Motion to Dismiss P's 8 Amended Complaintis GRANTED and P's complaint is DISMISSED as follows:1. Count I is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and, 2. Counts II, III and IV are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 1/31/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
9
10
11
12
13
STANLEY W. BROOKS,
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
v.
)
)
DR. KAREN GEDNEY, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_______________________________________ )
3:10-CV-00481-RCJ(VPC)
ORDER
14
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (#19)
15
(“Recommendation”) entered December 2, 2011, in which the Magistrate Judge recommends that this
16
Court grant Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#15).
17
No objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed.
18
I. DISCUSSION
19
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations
20
made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Further, under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), if a party makes
21
a timely objection to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this Court is required to “make a de
22
novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.”1
23
Nevertheless, the statute does not “require[ ] some lesser review by [this Court] when no objections are
24
filed.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149–50 (1985). Instead, under the statute, this Court is not
25
required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Id. at 149.
26
Similarly, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate
27
28
1
For an objection to be timely, a party must serve and file it within 10 days after being served
with the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C).
1
1
judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-
2
Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court
3
when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v.
4
Johnstone, 263 F.Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-
5
Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject
6
of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then this Court
7
may accept the recommendation without review. See e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting,
8
without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).
9
In this case, there have been no objections filed to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
10
Recommendation.
11
Recommendation (#19) and accepts it. Accordingly,
12
13
Although no objection was filed, this Court has reviewed the Report and
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
(#15) is GRANTED and Plaintiff’s complaint is DISMISSED as follows:
14
1.
Count I is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and
15
2.
Counts II, III and IV are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
16
IT IS SO ORDERED.
17
DATED: This 31st day of January, 2012.
18
19
20
_______________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
Chief District Court Judge
21
22
23
24
25
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?