Edmiston v. Saucedo

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: July 26, 2022
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00245
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 JUSTIN EDMISTON, Case No. 3:21-cv-00245-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 RICARDO SAUCEDO,1 et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Justin Edmiston brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 48 (“R&R”)) of United States 13 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney, recommending that the Court deny Edmiston’s 14 emergency motion for immediate medical transport2 (ECF No. 46 (“Motion”)). Edmiston 15 had until July 20, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been 16 filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny 17 Edmiston’s Motion. 18 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 20 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 21 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 22 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 23 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 24 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 25

26 1The Court directs the Clerk of Court to correct the name on the docket from “Sucido” to “Ricardo Saucedo.” (ECF No. 47 at 1.) 27 2Defendants filed a response to Edmiston’s Motion and Edmiston did not file a 1 || findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 2 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 3 || clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 5 || satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. Judge Denney correctly found that the 6 || Court lacks authority to grant Edmiston’s requested relief in the Motion. (ECF Nos. 46 at 7 || 1-2, 48 at 3.) This is because the Eighth Amendment excessive force claim in Edmiston’s 8 || complaint is distinct and unrelated to the incident in his Motion, where he seeks immediate 9 || medical transport for an eye injury that he sustained in June 2022. (ECF Nos. 46 at 3, 48 10 || at 3.) See Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 635 (9th 11 || Cir. 2015) (noting that there must be a “sufficient nexus between the claims raised in a 12 || motion for injunctive relief and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself. . . 13 || where the preliminary injunction would grant relief of the same character as that which 14 || may be granted finally”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Because there is 15 || not a sufficient nexus here, the Court must deny Edmiston’s Motion and he may file a 16 || new, separate lawsuit for his eye injury after he completes the prison internal grievance 17 || process. (ECF No. 48 at 3.) The Court therefore agrees with Judge Denney and adopts 18 || the R&R in full. 19 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 20 || No. 48) is accepted and adopted in full. 21 It is further ordered that Edmiston’s emergency motion (ECF No. 46) is denied. 22 DATED THIS 26" Day of July 2022. — ON 24 MIRANDA M. DU 35 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26 27 28