Bennett v. Keast et al

Filing 19

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)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 GREGORY J. BENNETT, Case No. 3:17-cv-00525-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB 11 JOHN KEAST, et al., 12 Defendant. 13 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 16) (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) relating to Plaintiff’s 16 motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 6). The parties had until January 4, 2018, to 17 object to the R&R. No objection has been filed. 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 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 22 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 23 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 24 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). 25 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 26 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 27 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 28 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 1 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 2 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 3 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 4 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 5 the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. 6 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to 7 which no objection was filed). 8 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 9 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. The Magistrate Judge 10 recommended denying the motion for preliminary injunction because Plaintiff conceded 11 that injunctive relief was no longer warranted. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying 12 briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation in 13 full. 14 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 15 Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 16) is accepted and 16 adopted in its entirety and the motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 6) is denied. 17 DATED THIS 10th day of January 2018. 18 19 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

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?