Entsminger v. Aranas

Opinion

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 Plaintiff Gregory West Entsminger, who is in custody at the Northern Nevada 14 Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law. 15 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 16 William G. Cobb (ECF No. 203) (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s 17 motion to set aside dismissal of dental assistant Jennifer (ECF No. 179). Plaintiff filed a 18 response in support of the R&R. (ECF No. 214.) As discussed further below, the Court 19 agrees with Judge Cobb’s reasoning and adopts the R&R in full. 20 The Court incorporates the facts outlined in the R&R (ECF No. 203 at 1-4) and does 21 not recite them here. 22 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 23 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 24 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is 25 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 26 recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails 27 to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 28 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also 1 || United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard 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 Despite the lack of objection, this Court has engaged in a de novo review to 7 || determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb recommends that the Court grant 8 || Plaintiff's motion to set aside the dismissal of dental assistant Jennifer. (ECF No. 203 at 9 || 4.) Judge Cobb also recommends giving Plaintiff 30 days from the date of such order to 10 || file a proof of service on Jennifer before dismissing her under Federal Rule of Civil 11 || Procedure 4(m). (/d.) Because Plaintiff agrees (ECF No. 214 at 1),1 Defendants have not 12 || responded, and the Court agrees with Judge Cobb, the Court will adopt the R&R (ECF 13 || No. 203) in full. 14 It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 15 || William G. Cobb (ECF Nos. 203) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. 16 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion to set aside dismissal of dental assistant 17 || Jennifer (ECF No. 179) is granted. Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this order to 18 || file a proof of service on Defendant Jennifer, otherwise failure to do so will result in her 19 || dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). 20 21 DATED THIS 6" day of July 2020. 22 —

24 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 2 ‘Plaintiff also requests that the Court authorize USMS to locate the unserved 27 || defendants at their new addresses and provide information on them. (ECF No. 214 at 1- 2.) The Court denies such request as beyond the scope of a response to the R&R, and 28 || directs Plaintiff to file a motion if he still wants to make that request. See LR IC 2-2(b) (requiring that each type of requested relief be filed in a separate document).