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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?