Doyle v. State of Nevada

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 BRETT DOYLE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00725-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 STATE OF NEVADA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Brett Doyle, who is incarcerated at Lovelock Correctional Center, 12 brings this action against Defendants Scott Davis, Renee Baker, and Harold Wickham 13 under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 7.) Before the Court is the Report and 14 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 15 49), recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 16 No. 40 (“Motion”)), and deny Doyle’s request (ECF No. 42) to strike Defendants’ Motion. 17 Objections to the R&R were due October 26, 2022. To date, neither party has objected 18 to the R&R. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full 19 and will deny Defendants’ Motion and deny Doyle’s request. 20 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 22 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 23 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 24 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 25 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 26 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 27 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 1 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 2 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 3 Because there were no objections, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 4 and is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. To start, Judge Denney correctly 5 found that summary judgment should be denied as to the First Amendment Free Exercise 6 Clause claim. (ECF No. 49 at 9.) This is because there are genuine disputes of material 7 facts regarding whether Defendants substantially burdened Doyle’s religious practice, 8 and whether Defendants’ denial of Doyle’s requests to observe holy days/fasts on 9 particular dates is reasonably related to safety and security interests. (Id.) See Jones v. 10 Williams, 791 F.3d 1023, 1032 (9th Cir. 2015) (citations omitted); Jones v. Slade, 23 F.4th 11 1134, 1144 (9th Cir. 2022) (citation omitted). 12 Second, Judge Denney properly found that summary judgment should be denied 13 as to the Establishment Clause claim. (Id. at 11.) This is because there is a genuine 14 dispute of material fact regarding whether Defendants favored Orthodox/Rabbinical 15 Judaism over Messianic Judaism and other religions. (Id.) See Hartmann v. Cal. Dep’t of 16 Corr. & Rehab., 707 F.3d 1114, 1125 (9th Cir. 2013) (citation omitted). Next, Judge 17 Denney correctly concluded that Defendants are not entitled to qualified immunity 18 because a reasonable factfinder could find that Defendants violated the Free Exercise 19 Clause and the Establishment Clause. (Id. at 12.) See Gordon v. Cnty. of Orange, 6 F.4th 20 961, 967-68 (9th Cir. 2021) (citations omitted). Finally, Judge Denney properly found that 21 Doyle’s request (ECF No. 42) to “strike” Defendants’ Motion should be denied, because 22 the correct procedure is to ask for the denial of the Motion. (ECF No. 49 at 1.) The Court 23 therefore adopts Judge Denney’s R&R in full. 24 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 25 No. 49) is accepted and adopted in full. 26 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 40) 27 is denied. 28 1 It is further ordered that Doyle’s request (ECF No. 42) to strike Defendants’ motion 2 || for summary judgment is denied. 3 It is further ordered that under LR 16-5, the Court finds that it is appropriate to refer 4 || this case to Judge Denney to conduct a settlement conference. If the parties do not settle, 5 || the Joint Pretrial Order is due within 30 days of the date the settlement conference is 6 || held. 7 DATED THIS 1% Day of November 2022. LZ 9 MIRANDA M. DU 10 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28