Friedman v. Baca et al

Filing 220

ORDERED, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 216 ) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on RLUIPA Claims (ECF No. 155 ) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

KENNETH FRIEDMAN,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00433-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
9

ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
12

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States

13

Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 216), recommending that the Court deny

14

Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on RLUIPA 1 Claims against Defendants

15

Kyle, Woods, and Aranas (“Motion”) (ECF No. 155). Plaintiff had until January 10, 2020,

16

to file an objection. To date, no objection has been filed. For that reason, and because

17

the Court agrees with Judge Cobb, the Court will adopt the R&R.

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

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

21

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

22

see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review

23

of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or

24

both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original);

25

Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only

26
27
28

1Religious

2000cc-1(a).

Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. 42 U.S.C. §

1

satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the

2

recommendation”).

3

While Plaintiff has failed to timely object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation to

4

deny his Motion, the Court has nevertheless conducted a de novo review to determine

5

whether to adopt the R&R. After reviewing the R&R (ECF No. 216) and briefs relating to

6

Plaintiff’s Motion (ECF Nos. 155, 203, 211), the Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s finding

7

that genuine issues of material facts exist as to whether Plaintiff’s religious exercise was

8

substantially burdened to preclude summary judgment on his RLUIPA claims.

9

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

10

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 216) is accepted and

11

adopted in full.

12
13
14

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on
RLUIPA Claims (ECF No. 155) is denied.
DATED THIS 16th day of January 2020.

15
16
17

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2