Merry v. Sandoval et al

Filing 81

ORDER - Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 79 ) is adopted in full. Defendants' motion for attorneys' fees (ECF No. 77 ) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/25/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 DANIEL V. MERRY, Case No. 3:16-cv-00164-MMD-WGC 7 8 9 Plaintiff, ORDER v. BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al., 10 Defendants. 11 12 The Court granted summary judgment in favor of Defendants in this pro se action 13 filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 1 (ECF No. 74.) Before the Court is the Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge 15 William G. Cobb (ECF No. 79), recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for 16 attorneys’ fees (“Motion”) (ECF No. 77; ECF No. 78 (errata)). Defendants had until 17 November 22, 2019, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. 18 For this reason, the Court adopts the R&R. 19 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 22 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 23 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, 24 the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject 25 of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has 26 27 28 1Plaintiff filed an untimely objection to Judge Cobb’s report and recommendation to grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment after judgment was entered. (ECF No. 76.) Even construing the objection as a motion for reconsideration, the Court denies the same as Plaintiff failed to offer a valid reason for the Court to reconsider. 1 recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and 2 recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 3 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district 4 court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); 5 see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the 6 Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not 7 required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no 8 objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may accept the 9 recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 10 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection 11 was filed). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Defendants failed to timely object to Judge Cobb’s well-reasoned R&R. Accordingly, the Court adopts the R&R and will deny Defendants’ motion. It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 79) is adopted in full. It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for attorneys’ fees (ECF No. 77) is denied. DATED THIS 25th day of November 2019. 19 20 21 22 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 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?