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)

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