Antonetti v. McDaniels et al

Filing 133

ORDER adopting and accepting in full ECF No. 132 Report and Recommendation; granting Defendants' ECF No. 122 Motion for Summary Judgment; directing Clerk to enter judgment accordingly and close case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/17/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

Download PDF
Case 3:16-cv-00396-MMD-WGC Document 133 Filed 02/17/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 JOSEPH ANTONETTI, 7 8 9 Case No. 3:16-cv-00396-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, ORDER v. E.K. MCDANIELS, et al., Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Joseph Antonetti brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 132), recommending Defendants’ 14 motion for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 122) be granted. Plaintiff had until February 8, 15 2021 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, 16 and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will grant the Defendants’ motion 17 for summary judgment. 18 The 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 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 21 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 22 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 24 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 25 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 26 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 27 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 28 Case 3:16-cv-00396-MMD-WGC Document 133 Filed 02/17/21 Page 2 of 2 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends Defendants’ 3 motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s remaining counts—Counts I to VIII, X, XI, 4 and XII—be granted. (ECF No. 132.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having 5 reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 6 7 8 9 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 132) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 122) is granted. 10 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 11 DATED THIS 17th Day of February 2021. 12 13 14 15 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 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?