Cottle v. Nevada Department Of Corrections et al

Filing 173

ORDER accepting and adopting in full ECF No. 172 R&R; granting ECF No. 166 Motion to Withdraw ECF Nos. 134 , 146 , and 151 Motions for Reconsideration/Relief from Judgment; dismissing with prejudice this action; directing Clerk to enter judgment of dismissal. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/13/2016. (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

SEAN DAVID COTTLE,

Case No. 3:12-cv-00645-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.

ORDER

11
12
13

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al,
Defendants.

14
15

Before the Court is Magistrate Judge William J. Cobb’s Report and

16

Recommendation (“R&R”) (ECF No. 172) recommending that the Court (1) grant

17

Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 166) to withdraw his motions for reconsideration/relief from

18

judgment (ECF Nos. 134, 146 and 151) and (2) dismiss Plaintiff’s action with prejudice

19

and enter a judgment of dismissal. No objections to the R&R were filed.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the

26

subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth

27

Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s

28

report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v.

1

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

2

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

3

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at

8

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no

9

objection was filed).

10

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

11

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

12

and the records in this case, the Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

13

R&R in full.

14

It is hereby ordered that the R&R (ECF No. 172) is accepted and adopted in full.

15

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s request (ECF No. 166) to withdraw his motions

16

for reconsideration/relief from judgment (ECF Nos. 134, 146 and 151) is granted.

17

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s action is dismissed with prejudice.

18

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal.

19

DATED THIS 13th day of September 2016.

20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2