Friedman v. Baca

Opinion

2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 KENNETH FRIEDMAN, Case No. 3:17-cv-00433-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States 13 Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 216), recommending that the Court deny 14 Plaintiff’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on RLUIPA1 Claims against Defendants 15 Kyle, Woods, and Aranas (“Motion”) (ECF No. 155). Plaintiff had until January 10, 2020, 16 to file an objection. To date, no objection has been filed. For that reason, and because 17 the Court agrees with Judge Cobb, the Court will adopt the R&R. 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 fails to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any 21 issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); 22 see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review 23 of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or 24 both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); 25 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only 26 27 1Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000. 42 U.S.C. § 28 2000cc-1(a). 1 || satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 2 || recommendation’). 3 While Plaintiff has failed to timely object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation to 4 || deny his Motion, the Court has nevertheless conducted a de novo review to determine 5 || whether to adopt the R&R. After reviewing the R&R (ECF No. 216) and briefs relating to 6 || Plaintiff's Motion (ECF Nos. 155, 203, 211), the Court agrees with Judge Cobb's finding 7 || that genuine issues of material facts exist as to whether Plaintiff's religious exercise was 8 || substantially burdened to preclude summary judgment on his RLUIPA claims. 9 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and 10 || Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 216) is accepted and 11 || adopted in full. 12 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on 13 || RLUIPA Claims (ECF No. 155) is denied. 14 DATED THIS 16!" day of January 2020. i ASA 16 MIRANDA M. DU 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28