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)

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