Merry v. Sandoval et al

Filing 74

ORDER that Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 73 ) is adopted in full; Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58 ) is granted; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 6/28/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 DANIEL V. MERRY, 7 8 9 10 Case No. 3:16-cv-00164-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, ORDER v. BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants. 11 Plaintiff Daniel V. Merry, who is in the custody of the Nevada Department of 12 Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the 13 Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 14 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 73), recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ 15 motion for summary judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 58). Plaintiff had until June 24, 2019, 16 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and 17 as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will grant Defendants’ Motion. 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.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, 23 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 24 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth 25 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 26 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 28 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 1 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 2 Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 3 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 4 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 5 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 6 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 7 objection was filed). 8 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation to grant 9 summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Court will conduct a de novo review to 10 determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb thoroughly examined the medical 11 records that Defendants submitted and found that Defendants have demonstrated they 12 were not deliberately indifferent to Plaintiff’s serious medical need to support Plaintiffs 13 claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 73 at 9-18.) Having reviewed the 14 R&R and Defendants’ motion (which Plaintiff did not oppose), the Court agrees with 15 Judge Cobb. 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 73) is adopted in full. It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 58) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case. DATED THIS 28th day of June 2019. 23 24 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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?