Johnson v. Newton et al

Filing 51

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 45 is accepted and adopted; that Defendant's motion for summary judgment ECF No. 18 is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/30/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
KEVIN JOHNSON,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00582-MMD-WGC

9
Plaintiff,
10
11
12

v.
NEWTON, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

13
14

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

15

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 45) (“R&R”) issued on June 22, 2018, relating to

16

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18). Defendants had fourteen (14)

17

days to object. That time period has expired and Defendants failed to object.

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, 1123 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the

28

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

1

recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

2

263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in

3

Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review “any

4

issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a

5

magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation

6

without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without

7

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

8

Neither Plaintiff nor Defendants objected to the R&R. Nevertheless, the Court will

9

conduct a de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. The Magistrate

10

Judge recommends denying any request by Plaintiff to defer ruling on the motion for

11

summary judgment under Rule 56(d), denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary

12

Judgment (ECF No. 18), and dismissing without prejudice the doe defendants and

13

claims asserted against them in Count II because Plaintiff has failed to timely serve

14

those defendants. Having reviewed the R&R, Defendant’s motion and the filings in this

15

case, the Court agrees with the R&R and will adopt Judge Cobb’s recommendation.

16
17
18
19

It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
William G. Cobb (ECF No. 45) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 18)
is denied.

20
21

DATED THIS 30th day of July 2018.

22
23
24
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

25
26
27
28
2