Johnson v. Nguyen et al

Filing 94

ORDER adopting and accepting in its entirety 89 Report and Recommendation; denying Plaintiff's 41 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/7/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,

Case No. 3:12-cv-00538-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
A. NGUYEN, et al.,
12

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

13
14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

15

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 89) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

16

injunction (dkt .no. 41). No objection to the R&R has been filed.

17

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

18

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

19

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

20

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

21

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

22

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

23

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

28

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

1

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

2

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

3

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

4

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

5

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

6

which no objection was filed).

7

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

8

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R

9

and underlying records filed in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the

10
11

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.
It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

12

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 89) is accepted and

13

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction (dkt. no. 41) is

14

denied.

15

DATED THIS 7th day of January 2015.

16
17
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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