United States District Court, D. Nevada
ORDER REGARDING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE VALERIE P. COOKE
MIRANDA M. DU, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 53)
(“R&R” or “Recommendation”)
relating to Defendants Renee Pfister and Danelli Taylor's
(“Defendants”) Motion for Summary Judgment
(“the Motion”) (ECF Nos. 40, 41). Plaintiff
timely filed his objection to the R&R (ECF No. 54) and
Defendants filed their response (ECF No. 55). Plaintiff also
filed a reply (ECF No. 56).
who is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (“NDOC”), asserts four counts based
on events that occurred while he was held at Washoe County
Detention Facility (“WCDF”). (ECF No. 6.)
Following screening of the complaint, the Court allowed
plaintiff to proceed on an Eighth Amendment deliberate
indifference claim against Defendants Rene Pfister and
Danelli Taylor (referred to as “nurse Valentine”
in the complaint) and officer John Doe. (ECF No. 5.) The
following facts are taken from the complaint.
August 21, 2013, Plaintiff started experiencing attacks from
his Crohn's disease that lasted over twenty-four hours.
(ECF No. 6 at 3.) Defendant Taylor brought Plaintiff his
daily medication and told him to submit a kite so that he
could be scheduled to be seen by a physician. (Id.)
The next day, Plaintiff told Defendants Taylor and Pfister
that he was still experiencing Crohn's attacks and that
he needed to see a physician immediately. (Id. at
4.) Taylor told Plaintiff to submit a kite and when he told
her he had, she told him he would have to wait to be seen.
(Id.) Plaintiff's pain continued to worsen and
he asked both nurses for assistance, but received no help.
August 26, 2013, the lower right side of Plaintiff's
stomach swelled up like a balloon; he asked defendant John
Doe correctional officer for a doctor and was told to shut
up. (Id.) A few hours later, a different
correctional officer found Plaintiff non-responsive in his
cell. (Id.) He was then transported to St.
Mary's Hospital in Reno. (Id.) At the hospital,
Plaintiff underwent surgery for an intestinal rupture and
spent twenty-one days in the hospital during his recovery.
Review of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations
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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Summary Judgment Standard
purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials
when there is no dispute as to the facts before the
court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass'n v. U.S. Dep't
of Agric., 18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary
judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, the discovery and
disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show
there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that
the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.”
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986).
An issue is “genuine” if there is a sufficient
evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could
find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is
“material” if it could affect the outcome of the
suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby,
Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986). Where reasonable
minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however,
summary judgment is not appropriate. See Id. at
250-51. “The amount of evidence necessary to raise a
genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a
jury or judge to resolve the parties' differing versions
of the truth at trial.'” Aydin Corp. v. Loral
Corp., 718 F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting
First Nat'l Bank v. Cities Service Co., 391 U.S.
253, 288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion,
a court views all facts and draws all inferences in the light
most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement
Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103
(9th Cir. 1986).
moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no
genuine issues of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib.
Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once the
moving party satisfies Rule 56's requirements, the burden
shifts to the party resisting the motion to “set forth
specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for
trial.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The
nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the
pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through
affidavits or admissible discovery material, to show that the
dispute exists, ” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc.,
929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more
than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to
the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., 285
F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita ...