Weddle v. Baker et al

Filing 77

ORDER accepting and adopting 66 and 70 Reports and Recommendations; denying 35 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting 57 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting nunc pro tunc 72 Motion for Extension of Time; and directing clerk to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/21/16. (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

RICHARD WEDDLE,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00241-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.

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

11
RENEE BAKER, et al,
12
Defendants.
13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

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

16

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 66) (“R&R”), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff

17

Richard Weddle’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 35). An objection to the R&R

18

was timely filed by Plaintiff (dkt. no. 71), and Defendants filed a response to the objection

19

(dkt. no. 75). The Magistrate Judge also issued a Report and Recommendation (dkt. no.

20

70), recommending the Court grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt.

21

57). Plaintiff requested a thirty day extension of time, up to and including February 27,

22

2016, to file his objection to the Magistrate Judge’s R&R relating to summary judgment.

23

(Dkt. no. 72.) However, the quested thirty day deadline has expired, and Plaintiff has

24

failed to file his objection.

25

II.

BACKGROUND

26

After screening and re-screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Court

27

determined that Plaintiff states colorable claims under the Free Exercise Clause and

28

permitted Plaintiff to proceed on three counts: count I against Defendants Sandoval,

1

Baker and Moore for being denied a kosher diet on January 11, 2012; count II against

2

Defendants Youngblood and Williams for being denied kosher meals while he was

3

housed at Southern Desert Correctional Center (“SDCC”); and count III against

4

Defendants Stogner and Deal for being denied kosher meals at Lovelock Correctional

5

Center (“LCC”). (Dkt. no. 8.) The allegations and evidence relating to Plaintiff’s claims

6

are detailed in the “Summary of Facts” section in the R&R relating to summary judgment,

7

which the Court adopts. (Dkt. no. 70 at 6-9.)

8

III.

DISCUSSION

9

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

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

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

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

which no objection was filed).

27

While Plaintiff has timely objected only to the R&R relating to preliminary

28

injunction, the Court has nevertheless engaged in a de novo review to determine
2

1

whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s Reports and Recommendations. Upon

2

reviewing the two Reports and Recommendations and underlying briefs, this Court finds

3

good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s two Reports and Recommendations in full.

4

The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary

5

Injunction because Plaintiff has failed to establish the requirements for obtaining

6

preliminary injunctive relief. (Dkt. no. 66.) In his objection, Plaintiff essentially reargues

7

the Court’s amended screening order and discovery rulings. (Dkt. no. 71.) Moreover,

8

because the Court adopts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to grant summary

9

judgment, Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction would be denied as moot at this

10

point.

11

The Magistrate Judge recommends granting summary judgment because the

12

undisputed facts do not support Plaintiff’s claims that (1) Defendants Sandoval, Baker or

13

Moore denied Plaintiff a meal during his transport from ESP to SDCC on January 11,

14

2012 (count I); (2) Defendant Youngblood and Williams engaged in conduct which

15

prohibited Plaintiff from practicing his religion when he was at SDCC (count II); and (3)

16

Defendants Stogner and Deal engaged in conduct which prohibited Plaintiff from

17

practicing his religion at LCC. (Dkt. no .70.) The Court agrees with the Magistrate

18

Judge’s reasoning and will adopt his recommendations.

19

IV.

CONCLUSION

20

It is therefore ordered that Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb’s Report and

21

Recommendation (dkt. no. 66) to deny preliminary injunctive relief is accepted and

22

adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 35) is denied.

23

It is further ordered that Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb’s Report and

24

Recommendation (dkt. no. 70) to grant summary judgment is accepted and adopted in

25

its entirety. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 57) is granted.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for extension of time (dkt. no. 72) is

26
27

granted nunc pro tunc.

28

///
3

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this

1
2
3

case.
DATED THIS 21th day of March 2016.

4
5
6
7

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4