Cardova v. Washoe County Sheriff Deparment et al

Filing 23

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)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

VINCENT CORDOVA, SR.,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00335-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

10
v.

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

11
ABIGAIL BIGGAR, et al.,
12
Defendants.
13
14

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

15

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (“R&R”) (ECF No. 22) relating to defendants’ motion to dismiss

16

(ECF No. 15). Plaintiff had until June 19, 2017, to file an objection. To date, no objection

17

to the R&R has been filed.

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

the court may accept the R&R 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

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

9

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. Defendants seek dismissal

10

of Plaintiff’s two claims for use of excessive force based on the expiration of the two year

11

statute of limitations. (ECF No. 15.) The Magistrate Judge agrees with defendants that

12

Plaintiff’s claims are time barred and accordingly recommends dismissal of the

13

Complaint. (ECF No. 22.) Upon reviewing the R&R and filings in this case, the Court

14

agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding and will adopt the R&R in full.

15
16

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.

17

It is further ordered that defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is granted.

18

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment in accordance with this Order

19
20

and close this case.
DATED THIS 27th day of June 2017.

21
22
23

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2