Reed v. Nevada Dept of Corrections et al

Filing 89

ORDER accepting and adopting 82 Report and Recommendation and denying 34 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/21/15. (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
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 (dkt. no. 82) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s motion for preliminary

18

injunction. Plaintiff had until May 14, 2015, to object to the R&R. No objection 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 Cooke’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

12

recommended that plaintiff’s motion for preliminary injunction (dkt. no. 34) be denied.

13

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

14

Magistrate Judge’s R&R in full.

15

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

16

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 82) is accepted and

17

adopted in its entirety.

18

It is ordered Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction (dkt. no. 34) is denied.

19

DATED THIS 21st day of May 2015.

20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2