Opinion
Case No. 3:14-cv-00313-MMD-VPC
05-23-2016
MAX REED, Plaintiff, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING 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 (ECF No. 127.) ("R&R") relating to Plaintiff's identical motions for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction ("Motion"). (ECF Nos. 96, 97.) Plaintiff had until May 14, 2016, to object to the R&R. To date, no objection 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 Cooke's R&R. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Plaintiff's Motion (ECF Nos. 96, 97) be denied. Upon reviewing the R&R and the underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 127) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is ordered Plaintiff's Motion for a temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 96, 97) is denied.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to supplement his Motions (ECF No. 109) is granted.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motions requesting a status check on the status of his Motions (ECF Nos. 114, 122) are denied as moot. Plaintiff's second motion requesting a status check asks the Court to clarify what steps he may take to appeal the Court's ruling in the event the Court denies his Motions. The Court cannot offer advisory /// /// ruling or give legal advice. Plaintiff should refer to 28 U.S.C. § 1292, which governs appeals of interlocutory orders such as an order denying preliminary injunction.
DATED THIS 23rd day of May 2016.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE