Williams v. Foster et al

Filing 66

ORDER adopting and accepting in its entirety 65 Report and Recommendation; denying Defendants' 34 Motion to Dismiss; granting Defendants' 40 Motion for Summary Judgment; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/26/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

TONY WILLIAMS,

9
10
11

Case No. 3:12-cv-00660-MMD-WCG
Plaintiff,

v.

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

S.L. FOSTER, et al.,
Defendants.

12
13

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

14

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 65) (“R&R”) relating to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss

15

under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) (dkt. no. 34) and Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no.

16

40). Plaintiff had until December 28, 2014, to object to the R&R. No objection to the

17

R&R has been filed.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

2

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

3

Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

4

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a

5

magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation

6

without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without

7

review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

8

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

9

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s Recommendation. Defendant’s

10

motions seek dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction,

11

dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) and summary judgment under Rule 56. The Magistrate

12

Judge recommended denying Defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter

13

jurisdiction and granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Magistrate

14

Judge recommended judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff as to each of

15

Plaintiff’s equal protection claims. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this

16

Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in full.

17

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and

18

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 65) is accepted and

19

adopted in its entirety.

20

It is ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (dkt. no. 34) is denied.

21

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 40)

22
23
24

is granted.
It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment in favor of Defendants and
against Plaintiff as to each of Plaintiff’s equal protection claims.

25

The Clerk is instructed to close this case.

26

DATED THIS 26th day of March 2015.

27
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28
2