From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

United States v. Holman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Feb 24, 2014
2:11-CR-457 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Feb. 24, 2014)

Opinion

2:11-CR-457 JCM (CWH)

02-24-2014

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s), v. ERIK HOLMAN, Defendant(s).


ORDER

Presently before the court is the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman. (Doc. # 72). No objections have been filed even though the deadline date for filing objections has expired.

Defendant filed a motion to dismiss the indictment in this case based on allegations that the government had failed to preserve evidence. (Doc. # 62). The magistrate judge recommended that the court deny the motion, as it is clear the electronic files in question were purged prior to the time that the government gained access to the computer system. (Doc. # 72).

This court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate." 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 this 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 the recommendation of the magistrate judge. Upon reviewing the recommendation and underlying briefs, this court finds good cause appears to ADOPT the magistrate's findings in full.

Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY, ORDERED, AND DECREED that the report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Hoffman (doc. # 72) be, and the same hereby is, ADOPTED in its entirety.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED defendant's motion to dismiss the indictment (doc. # 62) is DENIED.

__________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

United States v. Holman

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Feb 24, 2014
2:11-CR-457 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Feb. 24, 2014)
Case details for

United States v. Holman

Case Details

Full title:UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff(s), v. ERIK HOLMAN, Defendant(s).

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Feb 24, 2014

Citations

2:11-CR-457 JCM (CWH) (D. Nev. Feb. 24, 2014)