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)

Download PDF
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

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?