Igbinovia v. Nevada, State of ex rel. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 142

ORDERED adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 141 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's motion to file supplement (ECF No. 138 ) is granted. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 64 ) is de nied as moot. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65 ) is granted. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 114 ) is denied. Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 8/13/2018. (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

ENOMA IGBINOVIA,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00497-MMD-VPC
Petitioner,

10
v.
11
12

STATE OF NEVADA ex rel NEVADA
DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS,
et al.,

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

13
Respondents.
14
15

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

16

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (EDF No. 141) (“R&R”) relating to three pending motions:

17

Defendants’ motion to dismiss (“Defendants’ MTD”) (ECF No. 64); Defendants’ motion for

18

summary judgment (“Defendants’ MSJ”) (ECF No. 65); and Plaintiff’s cross-motion for

19

summary judgment (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (ECF No. 114). 1 Judge Cooke recommends

20

granting Defendants’ MSJ, denying Plaintiff’s Motion, and denying Defendants’ MTD as

21

moot. (ECF No. 141.) Plaintiff had fourteen (14) days or until August 7, 2018, to file an

22

objection. (Id.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

23

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

24

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

25

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is

26

///

27
28

1Plaintiff

also filed a motion to offer as an exhibit a copy of the receipt dated May
31, 2018, showing that he mailed his reply brief before the deadline. (ECF No. 138.)
Plaintiff’s motion (ECF No. 138) is granted. While Plaintiff’s reply was field a day late, the
Court did consider his reply.

1

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

2

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

9

objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D.

10

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

11

district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

12

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may

13

accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., id. at 1226 (accepting, without

14

review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

15

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

16

determine whether to adopt Judge Cooke’s R&R. Judge Cooke recommends granting

17

Defendants’ MSJ, finding that the two-year statute of limitations on section 1983 claims

18

bars all five (5) claims that survived screening. (ECF No. 141.) Having reviewed the R&R

19

and underlying briefs, this Court agrees with Judge Cooke and finds good cause to adopt

20

the R&R in full.

21

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation

22

of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 141) is accepted and adopted in its

23

entirety.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to file supplement (ECF No. 138) is

24
25

granted.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 64) is denied as

26
27

moot.

28

///
2

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 65)
is granted.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
114) is denied.
The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
this case.
DATED THIS 13th day of August 2018.

8
9
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3