Kelley v. Gedney et al

Filing 47

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Defendant Peery's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33 ) is granted. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/14/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11

JAMES C. KELLEY,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00041-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

v.
DR. KAREN GEDNEY, et. al.,

12

ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

13
14

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

15

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 42), recommending the granting of Defendant John

16

Peery’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff had until June 19, 2017,

17

to file an objection. (ECF No. 42.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed1.

18

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

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27
28

1Plaintiff

did not respond to Peery’s motion, and had suggested that Peery is not a
proper defendant. (ECF No. 35.)

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 R&R. Having reviewed Defendant

12

Peery’s Motion for Summary Judgment and the R&R, the Court agrees with the

13

Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and will adopt it.

14

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

15

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 42) is accepted and

16

adopted in full.

17
18
19

It is further ordered that Defendant Peery’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF
No. 33) is granted.
DATED THIS 14th day of August 2017.

20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2