Honeycutt v. Baca et al

Filing 57

ORDERED the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 55 ) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 42 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/27/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4

***

5
6
7
8
9

TODD M. HONEYCUTT,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00230-MMD-CBC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11

Pro se Plaintiff Todd M. Honeycutt, currently incarcerated and in the custody of

12

the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), alleges a procedural due process

13

claim in this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. (ECF Nos. 3, 4.) Before the Court is the Report

14

and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge

15

Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 55), recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for

16

summary judgment (ECF No. 42) because the undisputed facts show there was no

17

inaccuracy in the risk assessment score upon which Plaintiff’s claim is based. Plaintiff

18

had until September 20, 2019 to file an objection (ECF No. 55), but has failed to so. The

19

Court agrees with Judge Carry and will adopt the R&R in full.

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object,

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

3

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

4

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting

5

the view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject

6

of an objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation,

7

then the Court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

8

263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s

9

recommendation to which no objection was filed).

10

While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Carry’s recommendation to grant

11

summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Court will conduct a de novo review to

12

determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Carry found that the undisputed evidence

13

supports Defendants’ contention that Plaintiff’s risk assessment was accurately

14

completed such that his procedural due process rights could not have been violated.

15

Having reviewed the R&R and the briefs relating to Defendants’ motion for summary

16

judgment, the Court agrees.

17
18
19
20
21
22
23

It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
Carla B. Carry (ECF No. 55) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No.
42) is granted.
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order
and close this case.
DATED THIS 27th day of September 2019.

24
25
26

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

27
28
2