Watkins v. Stogner et al

Filing 34

ORDER that ECF No. 33 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb is accepted and adopted in full; ECF No. 23 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is granted; clerk directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close the case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 12/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

JONATHAN E. WATKINS,

10

Plaintiff,
v.

11
12

Case No. 3:15-cv-00346-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

JAMES STOGNER, et al.,
Defendant.

13
14
15

I.

SUMMARY

16

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

17

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 33) (“R&R”) recommending granting Defendants’

18

Motion for Summary Judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”) (ECF No. 23). Plaintiff had until

19

November 8, 2017 to object. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

20

II.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

21

Plaintiff sues multiple defendants for events that took place while Plaintiff was

22

incarcerated at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF. no. 7 at 1.)

23

Following screening, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on two claims: (1) Count I

24

for First Amendment Free Exercise and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

25

Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”) claim against Defendants NNCC Warden Isidro Baca and

26

chaplain James Stogner; and (2) Count III for Equal Protection Clause violations claim

27

against Stronger. (ECF No. 8 at 3-7.) The relevant facts are recited in the R&R (ECF No.

28

33 at 6-7, 9), which the Court adopts.

1

III.

DISCUSSION

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Plaintiffs’

7

objections, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt

8

Magistrate Judge Cobb’s recommendation. Where a party fails to object, however, the

9

court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

10

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has

11

recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and

12

recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

13

328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the

14

district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were

15

made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

16

(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district

17

courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus,

18

if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept

19

the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226

20

(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection

21

was filed).

22

Plaintiff failed to file an objection. Nevertheless, the Court finds it appropriate to

23

conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The Magistrate Judge

24

recommends granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants based upon Plaintiff’s

25

failure to raise a genuine issue of material fact to oppose summary judgment. In particular,

26

the Magistrate Judge found that the undisputed evidence shows that Defendants did not

27

place any substantial burden on Plaintiff’s exercise of his religion in support of Count I.

28

(ECF No. 33 at 6-9.) As for Count III, which is premised on Stronger’s alleged dealings
2

1

with the Muslim community faith group prison reform student minister, Derek Perkins, the

2

Magistrate Judge found in part that Stronger undisputedly did not have such dealings with

3

Mr. Perkins. (Id. at 9-11.) Having reviewed the R&R and the briefs relating to Defendant’s

4

Motion, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge and will adopt the R&R.

5

IV.

CONCLUSION

6

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and

7

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 33) is accepted and

8

adopted in full.

9
10

It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23)
is granted.

11

The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.

12

DATED THIS 27th day of December 2017.

13
14
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3