Reed v. Nevada Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 129

ORDER accepting and adopting ECF No. 127 Report and Recommendation; denying ECF No. 96 Motion for TRO; denying ECF No. 97 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; granting ECF No. 109 Motion to Supplement; and denying as moot ECF Nos. 114 and 122 Requests for Status Check. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/23/16. (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
10

MAX REED,

Case No. 3:14-cv-00313-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
13

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

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

Defendants.

14
15
16

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

17

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 127.) (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff’s identical motions

18

for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (“Motion”). (ECF Nos. 96,

19

97.) Plaintiff had until May 14, 2016, to object to the R&R. To date, no objection has

20

been filed.

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

which no objection was filed).

11

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

12

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

13

recommended that Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF Nos. 96, 97) be denied. Upon reviewing the

14

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

15

Judge’s R&R in full.
It

16

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

17

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 127) is accepted and

18

adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered Plaintiff’s Motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary

19
20

injunction (ECF Nos. 96, 97) is denied.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to supplement his Motions (ECF No.

21
22

109) is granted.

23

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motions requesting a status check on the status

24

of his Motions (ECF Nos. 114, 122) are denied as moot. Plaintiff’s second motion

25

requesting a status check asks the Court to clarify what steps he may take to appeal the

26

Court’s ruling in the event the Court denies his Motions. The Court cannot offer advisory

27

///

28

///
2

1

ruling or give legal advice. Plaintiff should refer to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which governs

2

appeals of interlocutory orders such as an order denying preliminary injunction.

3

DATED THIS 23rd day of May 2016.

4
5
6

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3