Blanco v. Jacoby

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 MICHELL BLANCO, Case No. 3:20-cv-00050-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 JACOBY, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Michell Blanco brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 51), recommending the Court deny 14 Plaintiff’s motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 40 (“Motion”)) because Blanco seeks relief 15 in it insufficiently connected to the claims he is pursuing in this case. Plaintiff had until 16 February 9, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. 17 For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will deny the 18 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 Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney explains that Blanco is 3 || proceeding on Eighth Amendment claims generally regarding alleged sexual harassment 4 || and retaliation. (ECF No. 51 at 1-2.) But, Judge Denney explains, in his Motion, Blanco 5 || seeks an order stating that he may practice his Nation of Islam religion. (/d. at 2.) Judge 6 || Denney accordingly recommends the Court deny Blanco’s motion seeking injunctive relief 7 || because the relief he seeks is insufficiently connected to his claims in this case. The Court 8 || agrees with Judge Denney. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the 9 || Court will adopt the R&R in full. 10 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 11 || No. 51) is accepted and adopted in full. 12 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Michell Blanco’s motion seeking injunctive relief 13 || (ECF No. 40) is denied. 14 DATED THIS 14" Day of February 2022. 15

17 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28