Mahe v. Hartman

Opinion

1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JASON A. MAHE, Case No. 3:21-cv-00069-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 HARTMAN, et al.,

9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Jason Mahe filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 13 United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 21), recommending that 14 Mahe’s motion to be immediately heard due to the risk of life in jeopardy (ECF No. 7 15 (“Motion”)) be denied. Mahe had until June 11, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no 16 objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court 17 adopts Judge Cobb’s R&R and will deny Mahe’s 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, Judge Cobb construes the Motion as a 3 || request for injunctive relief to be moved out of the Nevada Department of Corrections 4 || (NDOC”). (ECF No. 21 at 2.) Judge Cobb recommends that the Motion be denied without 5 || prejudice because Mahe does not demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits of 6 || his failure to protect claim and he has not established a likelihood that he will suffer 7 || irreparable harm in the absence of an injunctive relief. (/d. at 5.) The Court agrees with 8 || Judge Cobb and finds that Mahe has not met his burden in requesting injunctive relief. 9 || Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 10 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 11 || 21) is accepted and adopted in full. 12 It is further ordered that Plaintiff Jason Mahe’s motion to be immediately heard due 13 || to the risk of life in jeopardy (ECF No. 7) is denied. 14 DATED THIS 23 Day of June 2021. 15 — 16 fA Sf 17 MIRANDA M.DU~ 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28