Gibson v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 188

ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 177 ) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction (ECF No. 129 ) is denied as moot. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/23/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Case 3:18-cv-00190-MMD-WGC Document 188 Filed 03/23/21 Page 1 of 2

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

CRAIG OTIS GIBSON,

7
8
9
10

Case No. 3:18-cv-00190-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

ORDER

v.
JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,
Defendants.

11

Pro se Plaintiff Craig Otis Gibson brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before

12

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

13

States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 177), recommending the Court deny

14

Plaintiff’s motion for a temporary restraining order and/or preliminary injunction primarily

15

seeking his release from custody (ECF No. 129 (“Injunction Motion”)) as moot because

16

he has been released from the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections

17

(“NDOC”). Plaintiff had until March 16, 2021 to file an objection. To date, no objection to

18

the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the

19

R&R, and will deny the Injunction Motion as moot.

20

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

21

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

22

fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to

23

conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas

24

v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114,

25

1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and

26

recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the

27

findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory

28

Case 3:18-cv-00190-MMD-WGC Document 188 Filed 03/23/21 Page 2 of 2

1

Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no

2

clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

3

Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is

4

satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends denying the

5

Injunction Motion as moot because Plaintiff has been released from NDOC custody. (ECF

6

No. 177 at 4.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R and the

7

record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.

8
9
10
11
12

It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No.
177) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for temporary restraining order and/or
preliminary injunction (ECF No. 129) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 23rd Day of March 2021.

13
14
15
16

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2