From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lopez v. Armstread

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 11, 2015
Case No. 3:13-cv-00294-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. May. 11, 2015)

Opinion

Case No. 3:13-cv-00294-MMD-VPC

05-11-2015

ISRAEL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. ERIC ARMSTREAD, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke's ("R&R") (dkt. no. 54) relating to defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 54). No objection to the R&R 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 R&R 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 Cooke's R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the R&R of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 54) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

It is further ordered that defendants' motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 36) is granted.

It is further ordered that the Clerk enter judgment and close this case.

DATED THIS 11th day of May 2015.

/s/_________

MIRANDA M. DU

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Lopez v. Armstread

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
May 11, 2015
Case No. 3:13-cv-00294-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. May. 11, 2015)
Case details for

Lopez v. Armstread

Case Details

Full title:ISRAEL LOPEZ, Plaintiff, v. ERIC ARMSTREAD, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: May 11, 2015

Citations

Case No. 3:13-cv-00294-MMD-VPC (D. Nev. May. 11, 2015)

Citing Cases

Williams v. Clark Cnty.

Claims under § 1983 require the plaintiff to allege (1) the violation of a federally-protected right by (2) a…

Thuna v. Kohn

"Claims under § 1983 require the plaintiff to allege (1) the violation of a federally-protected right by (2)…