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