Montoya v. Mattice-Harris ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ERIC D. MONTOYA, Case No. 3:22-cv-00558-ART-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND v. RECOMMENDATION (ECF NO. 31) 8 AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND K. MATTICE-HARRIS, et al., COMPLAINT (ECF NO. 29) 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Eric D. Montoya, an inmate in the Northern Nevada 12 Correctional Center, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against 13 Defendants K. Mattice-Harris, Borie, Hartman, Megan, Hughes, Long-Smith, 14 Henley, and A. Adams, alleging (1) he was placed in administrative segregation 15 for eight months without review, in violation of his Fourteenth Amendment due 16 process rights; (2) his medical information was disclosed without his consent, in 17 violation of his Fourteenth Amendment privacy rights; (3) he did not receive 18 medical treatment following a seizure, in violation of his Eighth Amendment right 19 to be free from cruel and unusual punishment. Before the Court is the Report 20 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney 21 (ECF No. 31), recommending denial of Mr. Montoya’s Motion to Amend 22 Complaint (ECF No. 29) because the proposed complaint is incomplete on its 23 face and amendment would be futile. Mr. Montoya had until October 9, 2023 to 24 file an objection to Judge Denney’s R&R. (ECF No. 31 at 6.) To date, no objection 25 has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the 26 R&R and denies Mr. Montoya’s Motion to Amend Complaint. 27 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 28 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 1 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 2 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 3 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 4 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 5 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 6 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 7 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 8 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 9 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 10 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review 11 and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney 12 recommends denial of Mr. Montoya’s Motion because the proposed amended 13 complaint is incomplete on its face and because amendment would be futile in 14 light of the fact that Mr. Montoya seeks to add parties against whom he has failed 15 to state a colorable claim. 16 Once a Plaintiff has missed the 21-day window for amending his 17 complaint, as Mr. Montoya has here, he may generally only amend his complaint 18 with the Court’s permission. Fed. R. Civ. P. § 15(a). However, the Court will not 19 give leave to amend where amendment: “(1) prejudices the opposing party; (2) is 20 sought in bad faith; (3) produces an undue delay in litigation; or (4) is futile.” 21 Amerisource Bergen Corp. v. Dialysist West, Inc., 465 F.3d 946, 951 (9th Cir. 22 2006) (citation omitted). 23 Judge Denney found that Mr. Montoya’s proposed amended complaint was 24 incomplete on its face because it only brought claims against three new 25 defendants—Dzurenda, Whitmer, and Childress-Brietenbach—and failed to 26 reallege most of the facts, claims, and defendants in Mr. Montoya’s original 27 complaint. (ECF No. 31 at 3.) 28 1 Further, Judge Denney found that, even if the claim were complete on its 2 || face, amendment would be futile since Mr. Montoya fails to allege facts sufficient 3 || to sustain claims against the three proposed new defendants. □□□□ at 5.) 4 || Specifically, the proposed amended complaint vaguely alleges that the proposed 5 || new defendants, Dzurenda, Whitmer, and Childress-Brietenbach, were “aware” 6 || of Mr. Montoya’s ad-seg status but does not meaningfully describe or support 7 || that awareness. (See ECF No. 29 at 3-9.) This is not enough to establish liability 8 || under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 9 Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court is satisfied 10 || that Judge Denney did not clearly err and adopts the R&R in full. 11 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 12 || (ECF No. 31) is accepted and adopted in full. 13 It is further ordered that Mr. Montoya’s Motion to Amend Complaint (ECF 14 || No. 29) is denied. 15 Dated this 20t Day of December 2023. 16 17 Ans jlosed den 18 ANNE R. TRAUM 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28