Novoa v. Baca et al

Filing 37

ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 36 Report and Recommendation, granting Defendants' ECF No. 18 Motion to Enforce Settlement; directing the parties within 10 days to submit stipulation and order dismissing case with prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/5/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

GUILLERMO RENTERIA NOVOA,
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00537-MMD-VPC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

12
Defendant.
13
14

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

15

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 36) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to

16

Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement (ECF No. 18), which Plaintiff opposed (ECF

17

Nos. 27, 29). The parties had until May 29, 2017, to object to the R&R. To date, no

18

objection has been filed.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

24

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

25

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

26

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

27

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See

28

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard

1

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

2

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

3

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

4

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

5

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

6

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

7

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

8

which no objection was filed).

9

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

10

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

11

recommended granting Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement. Upon reviewing the

12

R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

13

Recommendation in full.

14

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

15

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 36) is accepted and

16

adopted in its entirety. The Court grants Defendants’ motion to enforce settlement (ECF

17

No. 18).

18
19
20

It is ordered that the parties submit the stipulation and order dismissing this case
with prejudice within ten (10) days from the date of this order.
DATED THIS 5th day of June 2017.

21
22
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2