Lafferty v. Weiland ( 2023 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 CHARLES LAFFERTY, JR., Case No. 3:22-cv-00147-MMD-CSD 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WEILAND, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Charles Lafferty, Jr. submitted a complaint for violation of his civil 12 rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 3.) Before the Court is the Report and 13 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney 14 recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15 27 (“Motion”)) because video evidence and Lafferty’s medical records suffice to create a 16 genuine dispute of material fact as to whether Defendants used excessive force in 17 violation of the Eighth Amendment. (ECF No. 46.) Objections to the R&R were due 18 December 1, 2023. (See id.) To date, Defendants have not objected to the R&R. The 19 Court thus adopts the R&R in full and denies Defendants’ Motion. 20 Because there was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and 21 is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 22 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 23 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 24 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original). A party is entitled to summary 25 judgment as a matter of law when “the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as 26 to any material fact.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 27 (1986). 1 In the R&R, Judge Denney recommends that the Court deny Defendants’ Motion 2 || because viewing all evidence in the light most favorable to Lafferty, video and medical 3 || records create a genuine factual dispute as to whether Defendants used excessive force 4 || during an incident at Ely State Prison. (ECF No. 46 at 6-9.) Video footage from security 5 || cameras in the prison hallway shows some use of force which may be interpreted by a 6 || jury, and medical records are consistent with injury. (/d.) Judge Denney also recommends 7 || that, to the extent Lafferty requests deferral of the Court’s ruling on the Motion under 8 || Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d), this request should be denied because Plaintiff has 9 || not identified specific additional evidence needed. (/d. at 4-6.) Reviewing the evidence 10 || and parties’ filings, the Court agrees with Judge Denney and denies Defendants’ Motion. 11 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 12 || No. 46) is accepted and adopted in full. 13 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 27) 14 |! is denied. 15 DATED THIS 7" Day of December 2023. 16 ( | . 7 MIRANDA M. DU 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28