Machlan v. Neven et al

Filing 75

ORDER accepting and adopting 74 Report and Recommendation, denying 34 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Robert Machlan, granting 45 Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment, and granting [43 ] Defendants' Motion for Leave to File Confidential Documents Under Seal. Clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/27/15. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

ROBERT MACHLAN,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:13-cv-00337-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

v.
DWIGHT NEVEN, et al.,

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

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

Judge Valerie Cooke (dkt. no. 74) (R&R) relating to Plaintiff’s motion for summary

17

judgment (dkt. no. 34) and Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (dkt. no.

18

45). Objections to the R&R were due on March 6, 2015. No objection has been filed.

19

Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion for leave to file under seal. (Dkt. no. 43.)

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

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

11

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

12

exercises her discretion to screen Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint because of significant

13

differences between the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint, including

14

some claims that did not survive the initial screening and new legal theories. After

15

rescreening, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without leave to amend the

16

following claims: the Eighth Amendment claim in Count I; all equal protection claims in

17

Count II; and the Eighth Amendment claim in Count III. The Magistrate Judge then

18

considered the remaining claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standards and recommends

19

that summary judgment be granted. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this

20

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

21

Defendants seek to file under seal two exhibits which consist of Plaintiff’s medical

22

classification charts. (Dkt. no. 43.) Good cause appearing, Defendants’ motion for leave

23

to file confidential documents under seal is granted.

24

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

25

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 74) is accepted and

26

adopted in its entirety. The following claims are dismissed without leave to amend: the

27

Eighth Amendment claim in Count I; all equal protection claims in Count II; and the

28

///
2

1

Eighth Amendment claim in Count III. Summary judgment on the remaining claims is

2

granted in Defendants’ favor.
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 34) is

3
4

denied. Defendants’ cross-motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 45) is granted.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for leave to file confidential

5
6

documents under seal (dkt. no. 43) is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this

7
8

case.

9
10

DATED THIS 27th day of March 2015.

11
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3