Collins v. Collins et al

Filing 38

ORDER that the Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 32 is accepted and adopted in its entirety; the motion for preliminary injunction ECF No. 21 is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/07/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 RONALD COLLINS, Case No. 3:16-cv-00111-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, 10 v. 11 JOSHUA COLLINS, et al., ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB 12 Defendants. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 32) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to Plaintiff’s 16 motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 21). The parties had until October 25, 2017, to 17 object to the R&R. To date, no objection has been filed. 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 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 28 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 1 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 2 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 3 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 4 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 5 the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. 6 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 7 which no objection was filed). 8 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 9 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge 10 recommended denying the motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 32.) Upon 11 reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the 12 Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in full.1 13 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 14 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 32) is accepted and 15 adopted in its entirety. 16 17 18 It is further ordered that the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 21) is denied. DATED THIS 7th day of November 2017. 19 20 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1In compliance with the R&R, Defendants filed a notice confirming that Plaintiff had his MRI. (See ECF No. 32 at 4; ECF No. 35.) 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?