1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 RICHARD JOHNSTON, Case No. 3:22-cv-00080-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 DR. MARTIN NAUGHTON, 9 Defendant. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Richard Johnston brings this action under

. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 26), recommending the Court deny 14 Johnston’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 5 (“Motion”)). Plaintiff had until 15 July 22, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 For 16 this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny the Motion. 17 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 19 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 20 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 21 v. Arn,

(1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

, 22 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 23 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 24

25 1Johnston requested a 90-day day extension of time to file an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 29.) The Court granted that request in part, and denied it in part, giving Johnston 26 until July 22, 2022, to file an objection. (ECF No. 30.) Johnston then filed another motion 27 for an extension of time to file an objection. (ECF No. 32.) The Court denied that motion and warned Johnston that it would adopt the R&R and deny the Motion if he did not file 28 an objection to the R&R by July 22, 2022. (ECF No. 33.) But Johnston did not timely file 1 || findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 2 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 3 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 5 || satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney recommends denying the 6 || motion because he cannot determine from the evidence Johnston submitted whether he 7 || is likely to prevail on the merits, and it does not appear Johnston would be irreparably 8 || harmed if an injunction did not issue. (ECF No. 26 at 7-9.) The Court agrees with Judge 9 || Denney. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the 10 || R&R in full. 11 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 12 || No. 26) is accepted and adopted in full. 13 It is further ordered that Johnston’s motion for a preliminary injunction (ECF No. 5) 14 || is denied. 15 DATED THIS 25" Day of July 2022. 16

18 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28