Entsminger v. Aranas

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: January 27, 2020
• Docket: 3:16-cv-00555
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 * * * 7 GREGORY WEST ENTSMINGER, Case No. 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC 8 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 9 10 ROMEO ARANAS, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 13 I. SUMMARY 14 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate 15 Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 120) (“R&R”), recommending denial of Plaintiff’s 16 emergency motion for temporary restraining order (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 118). Plaintiff 17 filed an objection to the R&R (“Objection”).1 (ECF No. 122.) As discussed further below, 18 the Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s reasoning and adopts the R&R in full. 19 II. DISCUSSION 20 This 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 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 23 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 24 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 25 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 26 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 27 28 1The Court has also reviewed Defendants’ response (ECF No. 134). 2 of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to 3 which no objections were made); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) 4 (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of 5 the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 6 In light of Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R, this Court has engaged in a de novo 7 review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Plaintiff’s Motion requests an order that 8 maintains the status quo with respect to his housing, his legal and personal property, his 9 classification status, and his job assignment. (ECF No. 118 at 1.) Judge Cobb found that 10 the requested relief is ancillary to the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 120 at 2), 11 which the Court agrees. Accordingly, Judge Cobb recommended denying the Motion 12 because Plaintiff has not demonstrated the requisite “nexus between claims raised in the 13 motion and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” (ECF No. 120 at 3 (citing 14 to Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015).) 15 Plaintiff objects that there is sufficient nexus because the Motion seeks “to prevent ongoing 16 retaliation for the First Amendment activities.” (ECF No. 122 at 4.) But Plaintiff’s argument 17 is too broad to sufficiently demonstrate the requisite nexus to (1) his First Amendment 18 claim that prison officials opened his legal mail, or (2) his retaliation claim that certain 19 defendants refused to provide Plaintiff dental treatment because he filed a grievance. (See 20 ECF No. 21 at 20.) Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff provides no evidence of such 21 nexus. Plaintiff also attempts to distinguish his case from Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC 22 v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (ECF No. 122 at 4), but the Ninth 23 Circuit has recently applied that legal standard to the context of a prisoner’s civil rights 24 action. See Friedman v. Woods, 787 F. App'x 966 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of a 25 preliminary injunction where prisoner failed to establish a relationship between the 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 || requested injunctive relief and the underlying retaliation claims in the complaint).? 2 || Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion. 3 Ill. CONCLUSION 4 The Court notes that Plaintiff made several arguments and cited to several cases 5 || not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines 6 || that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the Motion before 7 || the Court. 8 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendatio 9 || of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 120) is accepted and adopted in it 10 || entirety. 11 It is ordered that Plaintiff's emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF 12 || No. 118) is denied. 13 14 || DATED THIS 27" day of January 2020. 15 16 4 Le 2 IRANDA M. DU 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Pursuant to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3. Friedman. 787 F. Aop'x 966 is not precedent. but mav be cited bv this Court. See FRAP 32.1 The Court accordinalv cites Friedman not 28 || for its precedential value. but because the Court finds the Ninth Circuit's reasoning on a similar point of law persuasive.