United States District Court, D. Nevada
WILLIAM G. COBB, MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND
MIRANDA M. DU, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
se Plaintiff Lance Reberger, an incarcerated person,
brought this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before
the Court is a Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (“R&R”).
(ECF No. 123.) In the R&R, Judge Cobb addresses
Defendants Deborah Comparoni and Sommer
Westbay's motion for summary judgment
(“Motion”) (ECF No. 102). Although the Court
granted him multiple extensions to respond to the Motion (ECF
Nos. 109, 114, 116),  Plaintiff failed to do so. Judge Cobb
recommends granting summary judgment in favor of Defendants
on Plaintiff's sole claim for violation of the Eighth
Amendment. Plaintiff has objected to the R&R
(“Objection”) (ECF No. 125) and Defendants
Comparoni and Westbay responded (ECF No. 126). The Court will
accept and adopt the R&R in its entirety.
is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of
Corrections (“NDOC”). (ECF No. 5.) This action
concerns events that took place while Plaintiff was housed at
Ely State Prison (“ESP”). (Id.)
screening, Plaintiff was allowed to proceed with a single
Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim related to
his allegations that he was served raw or undercooked food at
ESP. (Id.; ECF No. 4 at 6.) Plaintiff alleged that
the food made him sick and subjected him to a risk of
infection because his immune system is compromised due to him
being HIV positive. (ECF No. 5 at 3-5.)
Court previously dismissed Defendant Vern Harlow from this
action for Plaintiff's failure to show proof of service
upon Harlow on February 1, 2019. (ECF No. 89 at 5-6.) In the
same order, the Court also granted summary judgment to
Defendants William Shaw and Gary Gonzales on Plaintiff's
claim. (Id. at 5.) Comparoni and Westbay filed a
late motion to join Shaw and Gonzales' motion for summary
judgment (ECF Nos. 17, 73), but the Court denied the request.
(ECF No. 84.) Comparoni and Westbay filed a renewed motion
for summary judgment on Plaintiff's claim in April 2019.
(ECF No. 102.)
background regarding this matter is included in the R&R
(ECF No. 123), which the Court adopts.
Review of Magistrate Judge's Recommendation
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).
light of Plaintiff's Objection, the Court engages in
de novo review to determine whether to accept the
R&R. Upon reviewing the Objection, R&R, related brief
(ECF No. 102), and accompanying exhibits (ECF Nos. 102-1
through 102-11), the Court finds the R&R should be
accepted in full.