United States District Court, D. Nevada
AMENDED ORDER  REGARDING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE WILLIAM G. COBB
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Ryan Coddington alleges that Defendants
Deputy Jack Sobol, Deputy Herbert Parada, and Sergeant
Richard Cabrera violated his Fourteenth Amendment Due Process
right when they applied excessive force to him while he was a
the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (“R&R”) (ECF
No. 25), regarding Plaintiff's Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Plaintiff's Motion”) (ECF No. 18)
and Defendants' Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for
Summary Judgment and Cross-Motion for Summary
Judgment (“Cross- Motion”) (ECF No.
19). Judge Cobb recommends that the Court deny both motions.
(ECF No. 25 at 12:12-14.) Defendants filed objections to the
R&R (ECF No. 27), but Plaintiff did not. As discussed
further below, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb's
reasoning, adopts the R&R in full, and denies both
April 30, 2015, Plaintiff was a pretrial detainee at the time
he was involved in a physical altercation with all three
Defendants in the Lyon County Jail Complex. Both parties
dispute whether Defendants' use of force was objectively
reasonable. In doing so, both parties rely on video of the
incident as well as the sworn testimony of Deputies Sobol and
Parada at the preliminary hearing of the criminal charges
brought against Plaintiff in connection with the incident.
(ECF No. 18 at 18:14-22; ECF No. 19 at 5:2, 15; ECF No. 25 at
Cobb reviewed the video and concluded that there are genuine
disputes of material fact that the video cannot resolve. (ECF
No. 25 at 11:17-18.) Accordingly, Judge Cobb recommends that
this Court deny both Plaintiff's Motion and
Defendants' Cross-Motion. (Id. at 12:12-14.)
This Court has reviewed all six footages within the video
(ECF No. 20-1) and agrees with Judge Cobb's observations,
incorporates by reference his descriptions of the video (ECF
No. 25 at 10:5-19, 11:1-16), and does not recite those
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.” 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 (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).
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 Elec.
Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586
(1986)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence
in support of the plaintiff's position will be
insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
“when parties submit cross-motions for summary
judgment, ‘[e]ach motion must be considered on its own
merits.'” Fair Hous. Council of Riverside Cty.,
Inc. v. Riverside Two, 249 F.3d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir.
2001) (citations omitted) (quoting William W. Schwarzer,
et al., The Analysis and Decision of Summary
Judgment Motions, 139 F.R.D. 441, 499 (Feb. 1992)). “In
fulfilling its duty to review ...