Hart v. Baca et al

Filing 21

ORDERED, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17 ) is granted. It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/8/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DWAYNE HART,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00274-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE

11
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

15

Judge Valerie P. Cooke’s (“R&R”) (ECF No. 20), recommending that the Court grant

16

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 17). Plaintiff had until

17

January 24, 2018, to file an objection. (ECF No. 20.) To date, no objection to the R&R

18

has been filed.1

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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

24

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

25

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

26

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

27
28

1Plaintiff

did not respond to the Motion despite the Magistrate Judge’s order,
issued sua sponte, extending the time for Plaintiff to respond. (ECF No. 19.)

1

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See

2

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard

3

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

4

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

5

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

6

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

7

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

8

the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at

9

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no

10

objection was filed).

11

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

12

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge

13

found that Defendants have demonstrated that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his

14

administrative remedies. Upon reviewing the R&R (ECF No. 20) and the Defendants’

15

Motion (ECF No. 17), this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R

16

in full.

17

It

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

18

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 20) is accepted and

19

adopted in its entirety. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 17) is

20

granted.

21
22

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.
DATED THIS 8th day of February 2018.

23
24
25

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2