Olausen v. Yup
Filing
50
ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 40 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief ECF No. 30 is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 04/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
7
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
8
***
9
10
JOHN STEVEN OLAUSEN,
Case No. 3:15-cv-00539-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,
11
v.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
12
GENE YUP,
13
Defendant.
14
15
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
16
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 40) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to Plaintiff’s
17
Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF no. 30). Plaintiff had until March 1, 2017, to
18
object to the Recommendation.
19
Recommendation has been filed.
(ECF No. 40.) To date, no objection to the
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. The Magistrate
12
Judge recommends denying Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief (ECF No.
13
30). Upon reviewing the Recommendation and the records in this case, this Court finds
14
good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in full.
15
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
16
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 40) is accepted and
17
adopted in its entirety. It is ordered that Plaintiff’s Emergency Motion for Injunctive Relief
18
(ECF No. 30) is denied.
19
DATED THIS 27th day of April 2017.
20
21
22
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
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?