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)

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