Cardova v. Washoe County Sheriff Deparment et al
ORDER that the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke ECF No. 22 is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss ECF No. 15 is granted. Clerk directed to enter judgment in accordance with Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 06/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
VINCENT CORDOVA, SR.,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00335-MMD-VPC
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
VALERIE P. COOKE
ABIGAIL BIGGAR, et al.,
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge Valerie P. Cooke (“R&R”) (ECF No. 22) relating to defendants’ motion to dismiss
(ECF No. 15). Plaintiff had until June 19, 2017, to file an objection. To date, no objection
to the R&R has been filed.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at
1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no
objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. Defendants seek dismissal
of Plaintiff’s two claims for use of excessive force based on the expiration of the two year
statute of limitations. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge agrees with defendants that
Plaintiff’s claims are time barred and accordingly recommends dismissal of the
Complaint. (ECF No. 22.) Upon reviewing the R&R and filings in this case, the Court
agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding and will adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the R&R of Magistrate Judge
Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 22) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is granted.
It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment in accordance with this Order
and close this case.
DATED THIS 27th day of June 2017.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?