Friedman v. Baca

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * KENNETH FRIEDMAN, Case No. 3:17-cv-00433-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants.

11 I. SUMMARY 12 Before the Court are two pending reports and recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb: (1) the first Report and Recommendation (“R&R No. 1”) (ECF No. 159) recommends denying Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction asking for a report to be expunged (ECF No. 143); and (2) the second Report and Recommendation (“R&R No. 2”) (ECF Nos. 199, 2001) recommends denying Plaintiff’s motions for temporary restraining order/permanent injunction asking the Court to restrain Defendants from taking actions harmful to Plaintiff (ECF Nos. 174, 175). Plaintiff Kenneth Friedman filed an objection (ECF No. 167) only as to R&R No. 1.2 Defendants did not respond to the objection. For the following reasons, the Court overrules Plaintiff’s objection, adopts Judge Cobb’s two R&Rs, and denies Plaintiff’s motions.

22 II. BACKGROUND 23 The Court adopts the background as described in Judge Cobb’s R&Rs. (ECF Nos. 159 at 1-2, 199 at 2-3.)

1Judge Cobb issued a lengthier R&R that is sealed because it contains references to Plaintiff’s health and other private information. (ECF No. 200 at 1 (explaining reason for sealing).)

2The deadline to file an objection to R&R No. 2 was November 20, 2019. (ECF Nos. 199. 200.)

1 III. LEGAL STANDARD 2 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.” Id. 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. 14 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.

18 Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no objection was filed).

20 IV. DISCUSSION 21 A. R&R No. 2 (ECF Nos. 199, 200) 22 Plaintiff did not object to R&R No. 2. Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Cobb’s thorough reports and recommendations (ECF Nos. 199, 200).

24 B. R&R No. 1 (ECF No. 159) 25 In light of Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R No. 1, the Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and records in this case, this Court agrees with Judge Cobb that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate entitlement to his request to expunge a three- page report authored by Jennifer Sexton from his medical file. (ECF No. 159 at 6-7.) In particular, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s finding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that he would be irreparably harmed by its inclusion in his prison file, and that Plaintiff did not address the likelihood of success on the merits of his Eighth Amendment claims. (Id. at 6-7.)

6 In his objection, Plaintiff proposes an alternative form of injunctive relief—that the Court require Defendants to include a different medical report in his file. (ECF No. 167 at 1-2.) The Court will not grant this relief because Defendants have not had an opportunity to address this new request.

10 V. CONCLUSION 11 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Reports and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF Nos. 159, 199, 200) are accepted and adopted in full.

14 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s objection (ECF No. 167) is overruled.

15 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motions for injunctive relief (ECF Nos. 143, 174, 175) are denied.

17 DATED THIS 26th day of December 2019.

20 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE