Espinosa v. Filson

D. Nevada

Espinosa v. Filson

DecidedJanuary 31, 2020

Docket3:18-cv-00298

StatusUnknown

This text of Espinosa v. Filson (Espinosa v. Filson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, D. Nevada primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Espinosa v. Filson, (D. Nev. 2020).

Pincite

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5

6 BENJAMIN W. ESPINOSA, Case No. 3:18-cv-00298-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff ORDER v. 8 FILSON, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Benjamin W. Espinosa brings this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 14 Carla L. Baldwin, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily 15 dismiss his claims against Defendants Michelle Clay and Associate Warden T. Sandoval 16 (“Motion”) (ECF No. 95). (ECF No. 98.) No objection has been filed. The Court will accept 17 the R&R. 18 This 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’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any 21 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 22 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 23 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is 24 required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 25 recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes 26 (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 27 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 28 Judge Baldwin recommended granting the Motion because Defendants filed no 1|| evidence to support his claims against Clay and Sandoval. (ECF No. 98 at 1.) The Court 2|| agrees with the recommendation and thereby adopts the R&R in full. 3 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 4|| Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 98) is accepted and || adopted in full. 6 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Benjamin W. Espinosa’s motion for voluntary 7|| dismissal (ECF No. 95) is granted. The claims against Defendants Michelle Clay and 8|| Associate Warden T. Sandoval are dismissed. 9 DATED THIS 31* day of January 2020. 10 AS 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 * * * 5

6 BENJAMIN W. ESPINOSA, Case No. 3:18-cv-00298-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff ORDER v. 8 FILSON, et al., 9 Defendants. 10

11 12 Plaintiff Benjamin W. Espinosa brings this civil rights case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 13 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge 14 Carla L. Baldwin, recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s motion to voluntarily 15 dismiss his claims against Defendants Michelle Clay and Associate Warden T. Sandoval 16 (“Motion”) (ECF No. 95). (ECF No. 98.) No objection has been filed. The Court will accept 17 the R&R. 18 This 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’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any 21 review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 22 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 23 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is 24 required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 25 recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes 26 (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the 27 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 28 Judge Baldwin recommended granting the Motion because Defendants filed no 1|| evidence to support his claims against Clay and Sandoval. (ECF No. 98 at 1.) The Court 2|| agrees with the recommendation and thereby adopts the R&R in full. 3 It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and 4|| Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 98) is accepted and || adopted in full. 6 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Benjamin W. Espinosa’s motion for voluntary 7|| dismissal (ECF No. 95) is granted. The claims against Defendants Michelle Clay and 8|| Associate Warden T. Sandoval are dismissed. 9 DATED THIS 31* day of January 2020. 10 AS 12 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Espinosa v. Filson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/espinosa-v-filson-nvd-2020.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack