Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al, No. 2:2011cv01447 - Document 150 (D. Nev. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER Accepting and Adopting in its entirety Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach's 149 Report and Recommendation. Defendant Nevada Property 1, LLC's 145 Second Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement is Granted.The Clerk is directed to enter final judgment dismissing Nevada Property 1, LLC with prejudice. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/30/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Goodman v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al Doc. 150 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 8 *** 9 10 11 CHENTILE GOODMAN, Case No. 2:11-cv-01447-MMD-VCF Plaintiff, v. 12 LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE DEPARTMENT, et al., 13 ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAM FERENBACH Defendants. 14 15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 16 Judge Cam Ferenbach (dkt. no. 149) (“R&R”), submitted on May 12, 2014, relating to 17 Defendant Nevada Property 1, LLC’s Second Motion for Determination of Good Faith 18 Settlement (dkt. no. 145), Plaintiff’s Limited Joinder (dkt. no. 146), LVMPD Defendants’ 19 Limited Response to Plaintiff’s Limited Joinder (dkt. no. 147) and Plaintiff’s Reply to 20 LMPD Defendants’ Limited Response to Plaintiff’s Limited Joinder (dkt. no. 148). The 21 parties had until May 29, 2014, to file objections. No objection to the R&R has been filed. 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 24 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 25 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 26 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 27 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 28 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Dockets.Justia.com 1 Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a 2 magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See 3 United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 4 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 5 which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 6 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the 7 view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an 8 objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then 9 the court may accept the R&R without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at 10 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no 11 objection was filed). 12 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 13 determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach’s R&R. Upon reviewing 14 the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate 15 Judge’s R&R in full. 16 17 18 19 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the R&R of Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (dkt. no.149) be accepted and adopted in its entirety. It is further ordered that Defendant Nevada Property 1, LLC’s Second Motion for Determination of Good Faith Settlement (dkt. no. 145) is granted. 20 It is further ordered that, upon an express finding that there is no just reason for 21 delay, the Clerk is directed to enter final judgment dismissing Nevada Property 1, LLC 22 from this case, with prejudice, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Defendant Nevada 23 Property 1, LLC is discharged from all liability for contribution and for equitable indemnity 24 to any other tortfeasor pursuant to NRS § 17.245. 25 DATED THIS 30th day of October 2014. 26 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 27 28 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
