Johnston v. Hartman

Johnston · United States District Court for the District of Nevada · September 18, 2025 · No. 3:23-cv-00408-MMD-CLB

Summary

This is a United States District Court order adopting a Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation in a civil rights action brought by an incarcerated plaintiff. The court denied the plaintiff’s duplicative motion to extend time and his motion for supplementation as moot following the death of one defendant. Consequently, the court dismissed the deceased defendant from the action without conducting de novo review, as no objections were filed within the deadline.

Court
United States District Court for the District of Nevada
Writing for the Court
Miranda M. Du
Jurisdiction
United States District Court, District of Nevada
Decision date
September 18, 2025
Docket number
3:23-cv-00408-MMD-CLB
Procedural posture
The district court reviewed a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation recommending denial as moot of Plaintiff's motion to supplement and remaining motion to extend time, and dismissal of Defendant Dorame. No objection was filed.
Standard of review
Absent an objection to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, de novo review is not required; the district court reviewed the recommendation for clear error and found none.
Precedential value
Unpublished district court order; precedential status is unknown and no published reporter citation appears.
Disposition
other

Topics

civil proceduremotion to amendsection 1983prisoners rights

Practice areas

civil procedureprisoner civil rights

Questions Presented

  1. Whether the district court was required to conduct de novo review of the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation when no party filed an objection.
  2. Whether Johnston's remaining motion to extend time was moot because an earlier motion to extend time had already been granted.
  3. Whether Johnston's motion to supplement was moot in light of the suggestion of death, Johnston's request to dismiss Dorame, and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 25(d)'s automatic-substitution provision.

Holdings

  1. The district court need not conduct de novo review of a magistrate judge's findings and recommendations when no party files an objection.
  2. The remaining motion to extend time was properly denied as moot because the court had already granted Johnston's earlier motion to extend time.
  3. The motion to supplement was properly denied as moot, and Defendant Dorame was dismissed from the action.

Key quotations

De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations. (at 1)

Factual background

Richard Johnston, an inmate at Northern Nevada Correctional Center, brought a civil rights action against several defendants. A notice of suggestion of death was filed as to Defendant Kayla Dorame. Johnston then moved to supplement the action to substitute various defendants for Dorame, and he filed two motions to extend time, one of which had already been granted.

Procedural history

Plaintiff filed a civil rights action against multiple defendants. After a suggestion of death was filed concerning Defendant Dorame, Plaintiff moved to supplement the pleadings by substituting defendants and also filed a motion to extend time. The magistrate judge recommended denying both motions as moot and dismissing Dorame. Because Plaintiff filed no objection, the district court declined to conduct de novo review, adopted the Report and Recommendation in full, denied both motions as moot, and dismissed Dorame.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…