Pattison v. Sandoval ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 DANTE H. PATTISON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00287-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Dante Pattison filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 (ECF No. 7.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 47), 14 recommending that Pattison’s motion (ECF No. 45 (“Motion”)) seeking to consolidate this 15 action with Caballero v. Aranas (Case No. 3:19-cv-00079-MMD-WGC) be denied. 16 Pattison had until September 9, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the 17 R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts Judge 18 Cobb’s R&R and will deny Pattison’s Motion. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 22 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 23 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 25 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 27 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 28 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 || satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends Pattison’s 3 || Motion be denied because Pattison and Caballero—the inmate plaintiff in the requested 4 || consolidated action—have different allegations regarding the dental care they received 5 || and what care they believed was deficient. (ECF No. 47 at 6.) Additionally, both Pattison 6 || and Caballero suffered different dental injuries. (/d.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. 7 || Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 8 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 || 47) is accepted and adopted in full. 10 If is further ordered that Plaintiff Dante Pattison’s motion (ECF No. 45) seeking to 11 || consolidate this action is denied. 12 DATED THIS 14" Day of September 2021. 13 i {SI 15 CHIEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28