Burns v. Hanf

Opinion

1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 Case No.: 2:19-cv-722-JAD-NJK 4 David Burns,

5 Plaintiff Order Adopting Report & Recommendation 6 v. and Denying Motion for Preliminary Injunction 7 M.D. Hanf, et al., 8 [ECF Nos. 35, 36, 43] Defendants 9

10 11 On November 5, 2021, the magistrate judge recommended1 that I deny Plaintiff David 12 Burns’s motion for a preliminary injunction, in which he asks for a court order requiring the 13 Northern Nevada Correctional Center to allow him one hour of in-person computer research time 14 each day in the law library and up to 20 case checkouts each day.2 The magistrate judge 15 reasoned that Burns has no pending access-to-the-courts claim, so such an order would have no 16 nexus to Burns’s pending claims, and the court would exceed its jurisdiction to grant the 17 requested relief.3 The deadline for any party to object to that recommendation was November 18 19, 2021, and no party filed anything. “[N]o review is required of a magistrate judge’s report 19 and recommendation unless objections are filed.”4 Having reviewed the report and 20 recommendation, I find good cause to adopt it, and I do. 21

22 23 1 ECF No. 43. 24 2 ECF No. 35 25 3 ECF No. 43 at 3. 26 4 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 27 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 28 1 ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 2 || Recommendation [ECF No. 43] is ADOPTED in its entirety. Burns’s motion for a preliminary 3 || injunction [ECF No. 35] is DENIED. 4 come OS 5 Dated: November 24, 2021 6 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28