Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 79

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 76 is accepted and adopted in its entirety; ECF No. 33 Defendants' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 04/28/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10

JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00155-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

11
v.
12
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
13

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

Defendants.
14
15

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

16

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 76) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”), recommending

17

denial of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 33).

18

Defendants had until April 6, 2017, to object to the R&R. To date, no objection to the

19

R&R has been 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 Recommendation. Defendants

12

seek partial summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

13

administrative remedies relating to claims in three counts. Upon reviewing the

14

Recommendation, Defendants’ Motion and the underlying records, the Court agrees with

15

the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny summary judgment.

16

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

17

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 76) is accepted and

18

adopted in its entirety.

19
20

It is ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33)
is denied.

21
22

DATED THIS 28th day of April 2017.

23
24
25

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2