Lagunas v. Nevada Board of Prison Commissioners

Opinion

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 ENRIQUE LAGUNAS, Case No. 2:18-cv-02039-MMD-CLB

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

10 Defendants. 11 12 Pro se Plaintiff Enrique Lagunas 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 Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 27), recommending that Plaintiff’s 15 motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 22 (“Motion”)) be denied. Plaintiff had until 16 March 2, 2021 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For 17 this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny Plaintiff’s 18 Motion. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party 21 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 22 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 23 v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 24 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 25 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 27 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 || satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends □□□□□□□□□□□ 3 || Motion be denied as Plaintiff has not shown he has met each requirement to warrant an 4 || injunction. (ECF No. 27 at 5.) More specifically, Plaintiff has not shown he will suffer 5 || irreparable harm and his request is moot as he is currently in line to receive treatment 6 || based on his priority level. (/d. at 5-6.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having 7 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 8 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 9 || No. 27) is accepted and adopted in full. 10 It is further ordered that Plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No. 22) is 11 || denied. 12 DATED THIS 4"" Day of March 2021. 13 ne, 15 MIRANDA M. DU 16 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28