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
(“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 40) relating to Defendants'
Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No.
32). Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R (ECF No.
42), and Defendants filed a response thereto (ECF No. 44).
reasons discussed below, the Court accepts and adopts the
R&R in full.
proceeding pro se, is an inmate in the custody of
the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”).
The events giving rise to this action occurred while
Plaintiff was housed at Lovelock Correctional Center. The
Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on two claims under 42
U.S.C. § 1983: an Eighth Amendment conditions of
confinement claim and a First Amendment retaliation
claim. (ECF No. 12 at 10.) Further background
regarding Plaintiff and this action is included in the
R&R (see ECF No. 40 at 1-3), which this Court
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)(C). 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.” Id. 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, 1122 (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).
light of Plaintiff's objection to the Magistrate
Judge's R&Rs, this Court finds it appropriate to
engage in a de novo review to determine whether to
adopt Magistrate Judge Cooke's R&R. Upon reviewing
the R&R and records in this case, this Court finds good
cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge's R&R in full.
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) (internal
citation omitted). 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 moving party 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 Serv. 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). “In
order to carry its burden of production, the moving party
must either produce evidence negating an essential element of
the nonmoving party's claim or defense or show that the
nonmoving party does not have enough evidence of an essential
element to carry its ultimate burden of persuasion at
trial.” Nissan Fire & Marine Ins. Co., Ltd v.
Fritz Cos., Inc., 210 F.3d 1099, 1102 (9th Cir. 2000)
(internal citation omitted). 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., NT &
SA, 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal
citations omitted). “The mere existence of a scintilla
of evidence in support of the plaintiff's position will
be insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.