1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RODERICK SKINNER, Case No. 3:15-cv-00340-MMD -WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 RENE PFISTER, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 12 Plaintiff Roderick Skinner, who is in the custody of the Nevada Department of 13 Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this action under

. Before the Court is the 14 Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 124), recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ 16 motion for summary judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 116), and deny Plaintiff’s motion for 17 judicial notice (ECF No. 121) as moot. Plaintiff had until October 10, 2019 to file an 18 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 For this reason, and as 19 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will both grant Defendants’ Motion, and 20 deny Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice as moot. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

Where a party fails to object, however, 26

27 1Plaintiff untimely filed a motion to extend the deadline for him to file an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 125.) The Court granted that motion, and gave him until October 1 the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the 2 subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985). Indeed, the Ninth 3 Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s 4 report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. 5 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review 6 employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no 7 objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone,

(D.

) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that 9 district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”). 10 Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the Court may 11 accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone,

1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 13 objection was filed). 14 While Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Cobb’s recommendation to grant 15 summary judgment in favor of Defendants, the Court will nonetheless conduct a de novo 16 review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb recommends that summary 17 judgment be granted to Defendants because Plaintiff did not exhaust his available 18 administrative remedies. (ECF No. 124 at 12.) Based on this finding, Judge Cobb 19 determined he did not need to address the merits of Plaintiff’s medical care claim, and 20 also recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice that he was a pretrial 21 detainee as moot. (Id.) Having reviewed the R&R, the Complaint and Defendants’ Motion, 22 the Court agrees with Judge Cobb. 23 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 24 124) is adopted in full. 25 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 116) 26 is granted. 27 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice (ECF No. 121) is denied 1 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 2 close this case. 3 DATED THIS 29th day of October 2019. 4

5 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 6

7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27