Pattison v. The State of Nevada, Ex Rel, Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 143

ORDER accepting and adopting 138 Report and Recommendation and denying 89 Motion for Injunction. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/28/15. (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

DANTE PATTISON,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00020-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,

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

12
Defendants.
13
14

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

15

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 138) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

16

injunction (dkt. no. 89). Plaintiff had until July 19, 2015, to object to the R&R. No

17

objection has been filed.

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 recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

6

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

7

which no 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. The Magistrate Judge

10

recommended that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. no. 89) be denied.

11

Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the

12

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

13

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

14

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 138) is accepted and

15

adopted in its entirety.

16

It is ordered Plaintiff’s motion for injunction (dkt. no. 89) is denied.

17

DATED THIS 28th day of July 2015.

18
19
20

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2