Moore v. Lewis et al
ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 37 R&R; granting Defendants' ECF No. 22 , 23 Motion for Summary Judgment; directing Clerk to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 5/4/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
MARLOS M. MOORE,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00410-MMD-VPC
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
VALERIE P. COOKE
SGT. LEWIS, et al.,
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s (“R&R”) (ECF No. 37), recommending that the Court grant
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22, 23). Plaintiff had until May 1,
2017, to file an objection. (See ECF No. 37.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been
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 R&R 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 Cooke’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R
and the briefs relating to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, this Court agrees
with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and adopts the R&R in full.
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 37) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22, 23) is
It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.
DATED THIS 4th day of May 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?