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)

Download PDF
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?