Bennett v. Keast et al
ORDER - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety and the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 6 ) is denied. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/10/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
GREGORY J. BENNETT,
Case No. 3:17-cv-00525-MMD-WGC
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
WILLIAM G. COBB
JOHN KEAST, et al.,
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 16) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to Plaintiff’s
motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 6). The parties had until January 4, 2018, to
object to the R&R. No objection has been filed.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).
Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a
magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,
1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the
view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an
objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then
the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.
Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to
which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge
recommended denying the motion for preliminary injunction because Plaintiff conceded
that injunctive relief was no longer warranted. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying
briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 16) is accepted and
adopted in its entirety and the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 6) is denied.
DATED THIS 10th day of January 2018.
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?