Pinder v. Baker et al

Filing 78

ORDER adopting and accepting # 75 Report and Recommendation : Plaintiff's ## 39 , 40 Motions are denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/23/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

VINCENT PINDER,

Case No. 3:13-cv-00572-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

11
v.

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB

12
RENEE BAKER, et al.,
13
Defendants.
14
15

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

16

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 75) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s Motions for a

17

Temporary Restraining Order (dkt. no. 39) and Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 40).

18

Plaintiff had until June 18, 2015, to object to the R&R. No objection to the R&R has been

19

filed.

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 fails

25

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

26

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. See

1

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

2

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

3

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

4

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

5

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

6

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

7

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

8

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

9

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 Cobb’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

12

recommended denying Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (dkt. no. 39)

13

and Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 40). Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs,

14

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

15

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

16

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 75) is accepted and

17

adopted in its entirety.

18

It is ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order (dkt. no. 39)

19

and Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 40) are denied.

20

DATED THIS 23rd day of June 2015.

21
22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2