Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
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.

Gill v. Aranas

United States District Court, D. Nevada

May 2, 2019

KEVIN ROHN GILL, Plaintiff,
v.
ROMEO ARANAS, et al., Defendants.

          ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CARLA B. CARRY

          MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         I. SUMMARY

         Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Carla B. Carry (“R&R”) relating to Plaintiff's motion to amend complaint (ECF No. 29 at 1-2) and second amended civil rights complaint (“SAC”) filed against Defendants Aranas, Gedney, Mar, Walls, Long, and John Does numbers 1 through 10 (collectively, “Defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (id. at 3-15). (ECF No. 33.)[1] The parties had until April 24, 2019, to file their objections to the R&R. To date, no objection has been filed. The Court accepts and adopts the R&R in full.

         II. BACKGROUND

         Plaintiff is an inmate in the Custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”). (ECF Nos. 1-1, 6, 29.) He filed this civil rights action concerning events that took place while housed at Northern Nevada Correction Center (“NNCC”). (Id.)

         The SAC alleges factually distinct claims for violation of the Eighth Amendment /// against the different named Defendants. (ECF No. 29 at 3-15.) While Plaintiff appears to allege both claims of cruel and unusual punishment and deliberate indifference to serious medical needs under the Eighth Amendment, the Court's order screening Plaintiff's FAC only permitted amendment as to the latter. (ECF No. 5 at 5 (finding a single deliberate indifference claim against multiple defendants), 13; see also ECF No. 6 (FAC filed per screening order).) Plaintiff's lawsuit is accordingly limited.

         Plaintiff's SAC centers on his claim that he received inadequate medical care while housed at NNCC by various NNCC medical staff. (ECF No. 29 at 3, 5-9.) His claims focus on treatment for a degenerate hip condition. (Id.) He alleges that despite being aware of his pain and need for surgery NNCC staff refused to provide him effective pain killers and to schedule a surgery which has resulted in a permanent handicap and life-long pain. (Id.)

         Further facts regarding Plaintiff's complaint may be found in the R&R which the Court adopts in full.

         III. LEGAL STANDARD

         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).

         Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Carry's R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying documents, the Court accepts and adopts the R&R in full.

         IV. DISCUSSION[2]

         The Eighth Amendment prohibits the imposition of cruel and unusual punishment. U.S. Const. amend. VIII. Although conditions of confinement may be restrictive and harsh, they may not deprive inmates of “the minimal civilized measures of life's necessities.” Rhodes v. Chapman, 452 U.S. 337, 347 (1981). Prison officials must provide prisoners with “food, clothing, shelter, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety.” Toussaint v. McCarthy, 801 F.2d 1080, 1107 (9th Cir. 1986), abrogated in part on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995) (emphasis added). A prison official ...


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.