Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Robinson v. Nagel

United States District Court, D. Nevada

February 2, 2015

KIRT D. ROBINSON, Plaintiff,
v.
MR. NAGEL, et al., Defendants.

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB

MIRANDA M. DU, District Judge.

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 21) ("R&R") relating to defendant Bobbi Paulsen's Motion to Dismiss; or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 8). 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. The Magistrate Judge recommended that Paulsen's Motion should be granted because Plaintiff has failed to exhaust his administrative remedies before bringing claims against Paulsen. Upon reviewing the R&R and 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 William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 21) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Defendant Bobbi Paulsen's Motion to Dismiss; or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 8) is granted. Plaintiff's claims are dismissed without prejudice as to Paulsen for failure to exhaust his administrative remedies before filing suit.

In its Order entered on December 17, 2014, the Court granted Plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to clarify the other defendants that he wished to name in this action (one of two "Mr. Nagel" and a defendant identified as "Head Nurse Jane Doe I"). (Dkt. no. 20.) Plaintiff has failed to file an amended complaint within the specified time period. The Court therefore instructs the Clerk to close this case.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.