Coleman v. Erogul et al

Filing 97

ORDER accepting and adopting in its entirety ECF No. 86 Report and Recommendation; granting Plaintiff's ECF No. 81 Motion to Dismiss John Erogul as Defendant; denying as moot Defendant Erogul's ECF No. 66 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 11/14/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

RONNIE MONEY COLEMAN,

Case No. 3:17-cv-00649-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

7
v.
8
JOHN EROGUL, et al.,

ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

9
Defendants.
10
11

Pro se Plaintiff Ronnie Money Coleman, an incarcerated person, brought this civil

12

rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation

13

of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (“R&R”) regarding Plaintiff’s motion to

14

dismiss Defendant John Erogul (ECF No. 81) and Erogul’s motion for summary judgment

15

(ECF No. 66). (ECF No. 86.) The period for the parties to object to the R&R has passed

16

and no party has done so. The Court accepts and adopts the R&R.

17

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

18

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). However, the

19

Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

20

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v.

21

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review

22

employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no

23

objections were made); Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

24

(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district

25

courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection” and

26

accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection

27

was filed). The Court nonetheless engages in de novo review to determine whether to

28

accept the R&R and finds it should be accepted.

1

In the R&R, Judge Cobb considered Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss Erogul from this

2

case and found dismissal appropriate under Fed. R. Civ. P. 21. As a result, Judge Cobb

3

also denied Erogul’s motion for summary judgment as moot. The Court agrees with these

4

rulings.

5

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

6

of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 86) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

7

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 81) is granted.

8

It is further ordered that Defendant Erogul’s motion for summary judgment (ECF

9
10

No. 66) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 14th day of November 2019.

11
12

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2