Searching over 5,500,000 cases.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Tagle v. State

United States District Court, D. Nevada

December 26, 2017

VICTOR TAGLE, Plaintiff,
STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.



         I. SUMMARY

         Before the Court are two Reports and Recommendations of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb. In the first Report and Recommendation entered on October 5, 2017 (“First R&R”) (ECF No. 155), the Magistrate Judge addressed Plaintiff's filing entitled “Motion for Summary Judgment based on: criminal conduct of the counsel's and defendants alike” (“Plaintiff's Motion”) (ECF No. 38). In the second Report and Recommendation entered on that same date (“Second R&R”), the Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendant Corey Rowley's Motion for Summary Judgement (“Defendant's Motion”) (ECF No. 115). Plaintiff filed a consolidated objection to both Reports and Recommendations (“Objection”). (ECF No. 159.) For the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts both Reports and Recommendations.

         The Magistrate Judge denied Defendant's motion to strike Plaintiff's “response” to Plaintiff's Motion as a fugitive document. (ECF No. 157.) This ruling was in Plaintiff's favor. However, Plaintiff filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge's order where he again lodged complaints about the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 158) is therefore overruled. Plaintiff's motion to dismiss the Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 160), which is identical to his Objection (ECF No. 159), is denied. Defendant's motions for extension of time (ECF Nos. 161, 162, 163) are granted.

         Plaintiff also filed a motion for Defendant to provide a copy of his files (“Motion for Documents”).[1] (ECF No. 169.) Plaintiff appears to request “all his files”, including those filed in other cases, because of alleged abuse and destruction of his files by orders of Hardcastle, and of Judge Cobb and Judge Gordon (presumably in a different case). This request has nothing to do with the excessive force claim in this case. Accordingly, Plaintiff's motion is denied.


         Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, alleges that while he was housed at Ely State Prison, Defendant Corey Rowley had dragged Plaintiff to the point where he could not walk, had thrown Plaintiff into a van door, and had hit Plaintiff over the head multiple times for, what appears to be, the purpose of maliciously and sadistically causing harm. (ECF No. 6 at 6.) Based on these allegations, the Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on a single claim of Eighth Amendment excessive force against Defendant. (Id.)


         A. Review of the Magistrate Judge's Recommendations

         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.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). 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. 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.Supp.2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge's recommendation to which no objection was filed).

         In light of Plaintiff's Objection to the Magistrate Judge's R&Rs, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb's R&Rs. Upon reviewing the R&Rs and records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&Rs in full.

         B. Summary Judgment Standard

         “The 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).

         The 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 ...

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.