Opinion
Case No. 3:19-cv-00114-MMD-WGC
03-06-2020
KARL K. KNIGHT II, Plaintiffs, v. DEPUTY DJUKIC, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Pro Se Plaintiff Karl K. Knight II, who was previously an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC"), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 33) recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment ("Motion") (ECF No. 21) and Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's Motion (ECF No. 32). Plaintiff and Defendants had until March 4, 2020 to file objections. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will deny both motions.
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); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) ("De novo review of the magistrate judges' findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.") (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court "need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation").
Nevertheless, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept the R&R. Judge Cobb found that Defendants timely filed an answer, but mistakenly served it on Plaintiff's old address. (ECF No. 33 at 3-4.) Judge Cobb determined that this was a reasonable mistake because the complaint was served using Plaintiff's old address and Defendants had not yet appeared in the case when Plaintiff filed the notices of change of address. (Id.) Defendants subsequently served Plaintiff at the correct address. (ECF No. 28.) Therefore, Judge Cobb recommends that Plaintiff's Motion be denied and Defendants motion to strike be denied as moot. (ECF No. 33 at 4.) Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge Cobb's recommendation in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33) is adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 21) is denied.
It is further ordered that Defendants' motion to strike Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) is denied as moot.
DATED THIS 6th day of March 2020.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE