Jones v. The Nevada Board of Parole Commissioners

Opinion

1 2

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 12 Pro se Plaintiff Johnny Jones brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before 13 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 14 States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 28), recommending the Court grant 15 Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 24 (“Motion”)). Jones had until November 10, 16 2021, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, 17 and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will grant the 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 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 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 28 /// 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, Defendants moved to dismiss Jones’ 3 || Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim for failure to state a claim upon which relief 4 || may be granted per Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (ECF No. 28 at 2.) Judge 5 || Cobb reasoned that Defendants are entitled to absolute quasi-judicial immunity in this 6 || case. (/d. at 6.) Because “parole board officials are entitled to absolute immunity from 7 || suits by prisoners for actions taken when processing parole applications,” Sellars v. 8 || Procunier, 641 F.2d 1295, 1302 (9th Cir. 1981), and the actions giving rise to Jones’ claim 9 || involved processing his parole application, Defendants are entitled to immunity. (/d. at 5- 10 || 6.) Moreover, despite that the Court flagged this issue in an earlier order (ECF No. 11 at 11 || 5) and invited Jones to elaborate on whether he believed there was some reason 12 || Defendants should not be entitled to immunity, he did not make any such argument, nor 13 || did he object to the R&R. The Court therefore agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed 14 || the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 15 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16 || 28) is accepted and adopted in full. 17 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted. (ECF No. 24.) 18 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 19 DATED THIS 15" Day of November 2021. 20 _ LO □ 22 MIRANDA M. DU 33 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28