Richardson v. Reno Police Department et al
Filing
9
ORDER that the Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 7 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; plaintiff's IFP ECF No. 1 is granted; Clerk directed to detach and file complaint EC F No. 1 -1; plaintiff to be permitted to proceed with claims against Defendants Good, Flickinger and Leedy; claim against Reno Police Department is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/8/2018. (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
10
11
12
***
Case No. 3:17-cv-00383-MMD-WGC
ARTHUR D. RICHARDSON,
Plaintiff,
v.
RENO POLICE DEPARTMENT, 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. 7) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s application to proceed
16
in forma pauperis (“IFP Application”) (ECF No. 1) and pro se complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
17
Plaintiff filed his response on November 13, 2017 (“Response”) (ECF No. 8.), indicating
18
his acceptance of the R&R.
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).
26
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
27
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
28
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
1
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
2
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
3
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
4
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
5
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
6
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
7
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
8
which no objection was filed).
9
In terms of Plaintiff’s complaint, the Magistrate Judge recommends allowing
10
Plaintiff to proceed on his Fourth Amendment excessive force claim against the
11
individual officers. The Magistrate Judge, however, recommends dismissing Plaintiff’s
12
claim against the Reno Police Department (“RPD”) based on Plaintif’s failure to allege a
13
Monell claim against RPD with leave to amend. In his response, Plaintiff states that will
14
proceed against the officers. The Court construes Plaintiff’s reponse as an
15
acknowledgment that Plaintiff does not wish to amend his complaint to assert a Monell
16
claim against RPD.
17
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
18
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 7) is accepted and
19
adopted in its entirety.
20
It is ordered that plaintiff’s application to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 1)
21
without having to prepay the full filing fee is granted. Plaintiff will be required to pay an
22
initial parital filing fee in the amount of $23.93. Thereafter, whenever his prison account
23
eceeds $10, he will be required to make monthly payments in the mount of twenty
24
percent (20%) of the preceding month’s income credited to his account until the filing fee
25
is paid.
26
It is further ordered that the Clerk detach and file the complaint (ECF No. 1-1).
27
It is further ordered that the plaintiff will be permitted to proceed with this Fourth
28
Amendment excessive force claims against Defendants Good, Flickinger, and Leedy.
2
1
2
3
It is further ordered that the claim against Reno Police Department is dismissed
without prejudice.
DATED THIS 8th day of January 2018.
4
5
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3
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?