Kapetan v. Cox

Filing 138

ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 137 R&R; granting Defendants' ECF No. 126 Motion for Summary Judgment; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 DANIEL KAPETAN, Case No. 3:13-cv-00171-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE 11 JAMES G. COX, et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Valerie P. Cooke (“R&R”) (ECF No. 137), recommending that the Court grant 16 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 126). Plaintiff had until April 24, 17 2017, to file an objection. (ECF No. 137.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been 18 filed. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 22 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 23 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 24 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 25 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 26 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 27 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 28 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 1 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 2 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 3 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 4 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 5 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 6 the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 7 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 8 objection was filed). 9 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 10 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R 11 and the briefs relating to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, the Court agrees 12 with the Court’s recommendation and will adopt the R&R. 13 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 14 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 137) is accepted and 15 adopted in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 126) is 16 granted. 17 18 19 It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. DATED THIS 4th day of May 2017. 20 21 22 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?