Pattison v. Sandoval

Opinion

* * *

DANTE H. PATTISON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00287-MMD-WGC

Plaintiff, ORDER v. BRIAN SANDOVAL, et al., Defendants. Pro se Plaintiff Dante Pattison filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 7.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 47), recommending that Pattison’s motion (ECF No. 45 (“Motion”)) seeking to consolidate this action with Caballero v. Aranas (Case No. 3:19-cv-00079-MMD-WGC) be denied. Pattison had until September 9, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts Judge Cobb’s R&R and will deny Pattison’s Motion. The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends Pattison’s Motion be denied because Pattison and Caballero—the inmate plaintiff in the requested consolidated action—have different allegations regarding the dental care they received and what care they believed was deficient. (ECF No. 47 at 6.) Additionally, both Pattison and Caballero suffered different dental injuries. (/d.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 47) is accepted and adopted in full. If is further ordered that Plaintiff Dante Pattison’s motion (ECF No. 45) seeking to consolidate this action is denied. DATED THIS 14" Day of September 2021. i {SI CHIEE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE