Whittaker v. The State of Nevada ( 2021 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 LARRY M. WHITTAKER, Case No. 3:18-cv-00488-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Larry Whittaker filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 (ECF No. 4.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 107), 14 recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 100) be granted. 15 Whittaker had until September 24, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the 16 R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts Judge 17 Cobb’s R&R and will grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment. 18 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 20 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 21 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 22 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 24 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 25 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 26 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 27 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 28 /// 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 that Defendants’ 3 || motion for summary judgment should be granted for the following reasons: (1) Whittaker 4 || failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, (2) Whittaker was given adequate 5 || procedural protections as to his due process claim in Count |, and (3) Whittaker failed to 6 || present any evidence to support a casual connection between the sanction and his 7 || grievance activity to prove his retaliation claim against Defendant John Henley in Count 8 || Il. (ECF No. 107 at 5-16.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R 9 || and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 10 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11 || 107) is accepted and adopted in full. 12 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 100) 13 || is granted. 14 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 15 || close this case. 16 DATED THIS 29" Day of August 2021. 17 “n 19 CHIEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28