Hughes v. Goedert et al

Filing 9

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke ECF No. 8 is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff's amended omplaint ECF No. 7 is dismissed without prejudice, without leave to amend; Clerk to enter judgment and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 08/31/2017. (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

DANNY L. HUGHES,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 3:17-cv-00174-MMD-VPC
Plaintiff,

v.
WARREN G. GOEDERT, et al.,

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

Defendants.

14
15

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

16

Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 29) (“R&R”) relating to defendant’s second amended

17

complaint (ECF No. 7). The Court allowed plaintiff until August 7, 2017, to file an objection.

18

(See ECF No. 8.) To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226

7

(accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection

8

was filed).

9

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

10

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and

11

filings in this case, this Court finds good cause to accept and adopt the Magistrate Judge’s

12

R&R in full.

13

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

14

of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 8) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

15

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s amended complaint (ECF No. 7) is dismissed

16

without prejudice, without leave to amend.

17

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.

18

DATED THIS 31st day of August 2017.

19
20
21
22

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

23
24
25
26
27
28
2