United States District Court, D. Nevada
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Roger Randolph is an African American and
Jewish inmate who alleges that prison officials excluded him
from a Jewish religious event while other Jewish inmates
attended. Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation of
United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb
(“R&R”) (ECF No. 45) recommending that this
Court grant Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment
(“Motion”) (ECF No. 34) as to all claims and all
Defendants, except as to the equal protection claim in Count
I against Defendants Chandler and Dalton (ECF No. 45 at 19).
Defendants filed an objection to the R&R
(“Objection”) (ECF No. 49). As discussed
further below, the Court agrees with Judge Cobb's
reasoning, and adopts the R&R in full.
Court adopts the facts in the R&R (ECF No. 45 at 1-3,
5-6) and does not recite them here.
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.
light of Defendants' Objection to the R&R, this Court
has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether
to adopt the R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R and records in
this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge
Cobb's R&R in full and overrules Defendants'
Cobb found that there is a genuine dispute of material fact
regarding whether Defendants had a rational basis for
excluding Plaintiff from the religious event. (ECF No. 45 at
8-10.) Defendants rely on safety and security reasons, namely
the fact that Plaintiff's name was not on the list of
authorized attendees. (Id. at 8.) Meanwhile,
Plaintiff presented evidence that Defendants' excuse was
a pretext-Defendants falsely told Plaintiff they contacted
Chaplain Carrasco and confirmed Plaintiff had not been
invited when in fact ...