Anderson v. Dzurenda ( 2019 )

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 * * * 4 JOSEPH M. ANDERSON, Case No. 3:18-cv-00426-MMD-CBC 5 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 6 JAMES DZURENDA, et al., 7 Defendants. 8 9 Plaintiff Joseph M. Anderson, who is in the custody of the Nevada Department of 10 Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the 11 Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry 12 (ECF No. 84), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary 13 injunction and a temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 19, 20); deny Plaintiff’s motion for 14 a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 63); and deny as moot Plaintiff’s motion for a 15 hearing regarding these motions (ECF No. 33). Plaintiff had until August 7, 2019 to file an 16 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason and as 17 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and denies Plaintiff’s motions. 18 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 20 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 21 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 22 recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however, 23 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 24 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth 25 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 26 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 27 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 28 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 1 || objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. 2 || Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 3 || district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 4 || Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 5 || accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 6 || 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 7 || objection was filed). 8 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Carry’s R&R, the Court will conduct a 9 || de novo review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Carry found that Plaintiff 10 || did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits 11 || of his RLUIPA’ claim because Plaintiff did not “point to any particular evidence or say how 12 || it is related to his request for injunctive relief.” (ECF No. 84 at 8.) Judge Carry also found 13 || that Plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence to establish that he is likely to succeed on 14 || the merits of his due process claims related to Administrative Regulation (“AR”) 740 15 || because he did not allege any actual injury. (/d. at 12.) Having reviewed the R&R and the 16 || relevant motions, the Court agrees with Judge Carry. 17 It is therefore ordered that Judge Carry’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18 || 84) is adopted in full. 19 It is further ordered that the following motions are denied: Plaintiff's motion for a 20 || preliminary injunction and a temporary restraining order (ECF Nos. 19, 20) and □□□□□□□□□□□ 21 || motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 63). 22 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for a hearing regarding these motions 23 || (ECF No. 33) is denied as moot. 24 DATED THIS 12" day of August 2019. 26 MIRANDA 57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28 ‘Religious Land Use and institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.