Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00155-MMD-WGC
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 76) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”), recommending
denial of Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 33).
Defendants had until April 6, 2017, to object to the R&R. To date, no objection to the
R&R has been filed.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s Recommendation. Defendants
seek partial summary judgment, contending that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his
administrative remedies relating to claims in three counts. Upon reviewing the
Recommendation, Defendants’ Motion and the underlying records, the Court agrees with
the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation to deny summary judgment.
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 76) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33)
DATED THIS 28th day of April 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?