Howard v. Baker et al

Filing 54

ORDER adopting and accepting in its entirety 53 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' 36 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying Plaintiff's 42 Motion for Summary Judgment; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/27/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8
9
10
11
12

SAMUEL HOWARD,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00163-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

v.
RENEE BAKER, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

Defendants.

13
14

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

15

Judge Valerie Cooke (dkt. no. 53) (R&R) relating to Defendants’ motion for summary

16

judgment (dkt. no. 36) and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 42).

17

Objections to the R&R were due on January 31, 2015. No objection 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 Cooke’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R

10

and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R

11

in full.

12

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

13

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 53) is accepted and

14

adopted in its entirety.

15

granted. Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 42) is denied.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this

16
17
18

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 36) is

case.
DATED THIS 27th day of March 2015.

19
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2