Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-00049-MMD-WGC
01-22-2016
ROBERT L. BUTTERFIELD Plaintiff, v. LeGRAND, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 45) ("R&R") relating to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 36). Plaintiff had until January 9, 2016, to object to the R&R. To date, 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 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. Following screening of Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, Plaintiff was permitted to proceed on three claims for violations of the Eighth Amendment (for deliberate indifference to serious medical needs), the Equal Protection Clause and the Americans with Disabilities Act. (Dkt. nos. 3, 6.) The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment on all three claims because the undisputed evidence shows that Defendants were not deliberately indifferent to an excessive risk to Plaintiff's health, and Plaintiff was not denied medical services because of his race or his disability. (Dkt. no. 45.) Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's findings.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 45) be accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered that summary judgment be granted in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.
The Clerk is instructed enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.
DATED THIS 22nd day of January 2016.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE