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”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 78), recommending that Pattison’s 14 motion (ECF No. 75) for an extension of time to substitute Dr. Mardelle Peterson’s 15 personal representative as real party at interest be denied, and that Dr. Peterson be 16 dismissed without prejudice. Pattison had until December 2, 2021, to file an objection. To 17 date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, 18 the Court adopts Judge Cobb’s R&R and will dismiss this action. 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 no one has been able to identify a proper legal representative 4 || for Dr. Peterson and the Court’s resources are better spent addressing the issues that 5 || remain in this action. (ECF No. 78 at 2-4.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having 6 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 7 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 8 || 78) is accepted and adopted in full. 9 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Dante Pattison’s motion for extension of time to 10 || substitute (ECF No. 75) is denied. 11 It is further ordered that Dr. Peterson is dismissed without prejudice from this case. 12 DATED THIS 7" Day of December 2021. 13 14 15 bb MIRANBA M. DU 16 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28