Anderson v. Dzurenda

Opinion

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.

57 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

28 ‘Religious Land Use and institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq.