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)

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