Burns v. Hanf

Opinion

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

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

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

1 ECF No. 43. 2 ECF No. 35 3 ECF No. 43 at 3. 4 Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003); see also Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003). 1 ] IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation [ECF No. 43] is ADOPTED in its entirety. Burns’s motion for a preliminary injunction [ECF No. 35] is DENIED. come OS Dated: November 24, 2021 1]