Townsend v. Hebert et al

Filing 51

See 53 Notice for correct image. ORDER accepting and adopting 49 Report and Recommendation, granting 38 Motion for Summary Judgment, and directing clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/2/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC) Modified on 10/2/2015 (JC).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 JOHN M. TOWNSEN, Case No. 3:13-cv-00223-MMD-VPC Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE 11 MS. HEBERT et al., 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s (“R&R”) (dkt. no. 49), recommending that defendants’ motion 16 for summary judgment (dkt. no. 38) be granted. Plaintiff had until August 14, 2015 to 17 object. (Dkt. no. 49.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to object. 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 fails 23 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 24 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. See 27 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 28 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 1 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 2 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 3 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 4 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 5 the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 6 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 7 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 records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 11 R&R in full. It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the R&R of Magistrate Judge 12 13 Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 49) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is further ordered that defendants’ motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 38) is 14 15 granted. It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment for defendants and close this 16 17 18 case. DATED THIS 2nd day of October 2015. 19 20 21 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 22 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?