Jones v. The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: June 11, 2021
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00004
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOHNNY JONES, Case No. 3:21-cv-00004-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 THE NEVADA BOARD OF PAROLE 9 COMMISSIONERS, et al.,

10 Defendants. 11 Pro se Plaintiff Johnny Jones brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 11), recommending the Court deny 14 Jones’ motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 8 (“Motion”)). Jones had until June 1, 2021, 15 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and 16 as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny Jones’ Motion without 17 prejudice. 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 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 26 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 27 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 || satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends that Jones’ 3 || Motion should be denied because he has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on 4 || the merits. (ECF No. 11 at 4.) Judge Cobb reasoned that there is a chance that the parole 5 || board members may have been acting in a judicial capacity that would entitle them to 6 || absolute or qualified immunity. (/d. at 5.) Moreover, Judge Cobb found that Jones’ 7 || argument of his equal protection claim omits any discussion of the government's interest 8 || in using gender as a factor in parole assessments. (/d. at 6.) Accordingly, Jones’ Motion 9 || does not sufficiently demonstrate he is likely to succeed under intermediate scrutiny. (/d.) 10 || Finally, Judge Cobb was not convinced that Jones had demonstrated a likelihood of 11 || irreparable harm in the absence of injunctive relief because there is no guarantee he 12 || would be granted parole even if the Court granted the Motion. (/d.) The Court agrees with 13 || Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt 14 || the R&R in full. 15 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16 || 11) is accepted and adopted in full. 17 It is further ordered that Jones’ motion for injunctive relief (ECF No. 8) is denied 18 || without prejudice. 19 DATED THIS 11" Day of June 2021. 20 (§nQ_ 22 KMRANDA MDOT 33 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28