Opinion
Case No. 3:13-cv-00337-MMD-VPC
03-27-2015
ROBERT MACHLAN, Plaintiff, v. DWIGHT NEVEN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Valerie Cooke (dkt. no. 74) (R&R) relating to Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 34) and Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 45). Objections to the R&R were due on March 6, 2015. No objection has been filed. Also before the Court is Defendants' motion for leave to file under seal. (Dkt. no. 43.)
This Court "may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the court is required to "make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made." 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct "any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection." Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge's report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit's decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district courts are not required to review "any issue that is not the subject of an objection."). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge's recommendation, then the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).
Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke's R&R. The Magistrate Judge exercises her discretion to screen Plaintiff's Amended Complaint because of significant differences between the original Complaint and the Amended Complaint, including some claims that did not survive the initial screening and new legal theories. After rescreening, the Magistrate Judge recommends dismissal without leave to amend the following claims: the Eighth Amendment claim in Count I; all equal protection claims in Count II; and the Eighth Amendment claim in Count III. The Magistrate Judge then considered the remaining claims under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standards and recommends that summary judgment be granted. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
Defendants seek to file under seal two exhibits which consist of Plaintiff's medical classification charts. (Dkt. no. 43.) Good cause appearing, Defendants' motion for leave to file confidential documents under seal is granted.
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (dkt. no. 74) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. The following claims are dismissed without leave to amend: the Eighth Amendment claim in Count I; all equal protection claims in Count II; and the Eighth Amendment claim in Count III. Summary judgment on the remaining claims is granted in Defendants' favor.
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 34) is denied. Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment (dkt. no. 45) is granted.
It is further ordered that Defendants' motion for leave to file confidential documents under seal (dkt. no. 43) is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case.
DATED THIS 27th day of March 2015.
/s/_________
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE