Powell v. City of Elko

• Court: District Court, D. Nevada
• Decided: March 31, 2024
• Docket: 3:21-cv-00418
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

2 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 3 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 4 JEREMY R. POWELL, Case No. 3:21-cv-00418-ART-CSD 5 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORTS AND 6 v. RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING SUMMARY JUDGMENT 7 CITY OF ELKO, et al.,

8 Defendants.

9 10 Pro se Plaintiff Jeremy Powell, a former inmate of the Lovelock Correctional 11 Center, brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendants Bartolo 12 Ortiz, Brenton Pepper, John Adkins, Sergeant Hood, Rosina Garcia, and Joanna 13 Contreras. (ECF No. 69.) Before the Court are three Reports and 14 Recommendations (“R&Rs”) by United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney 15 and three motions for summary judgment by each of the above-named 16 defendants. Two of the R&Rs (ECF Nos. 181, 182) recommend granting motions 17 for summary judgment (ECF Nos. 155, 158) filed by Defendants Adkins, Hood, 18 Garcia, and Contreras. Neither party objects to those R&Rs, and the time to do 19 so has passed. After reviewing the relevant documents, the Court is satisfied that 20 Judge Denney did not clearly err and adopts both R&Rs in full. The Court does 21 not address the remaining R&R (ECF No. 180) and motion for summary judgment 22 (ECF No. 153) in this order. 23 When neither party objects to a Report and Recommendation, the Court 24 “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record” in 25 order to accept it. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983); see also 26 Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985) (holding that the Court is not required 27 to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an 28 objection”); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) 1 (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is 2 required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 3 recommendations.”) (emphasis in original). Neither party objected to the R&R 4 granting summary judgment for Defendants Hood and Adkins (ECF No. 181) or 5 the R&R granting summary judgment for Defendants Garcia and Contreras (ECF 6 No. 182). The Court reviews those R&Rs for clear error. 7 In addition to his claims against Ortiz and Pepper, Mr. Powell brings (1) a 8 Fourth Amendment claim that Hood failed to intervene to stop Ortiz’s use of 9 excessive force against him; and (2) a Fourteenth Amendment inadequate medical 10 care claim against Garcia, Contreras, and Adkins, based on allegations that he 11 notified them of an injury to his thumb when he was detained in the jail, but they 12 failed to provide him with any treatment for 12 days. (ECF Nos. 68, 69, 98.) 13 Judge Denney recommends summary judgment in favor of Hood because 14 video evidence demonstrates that he did not have a realistic opportunity to 15 intercede in Ortiz’s use of excessive force. (ECF No. 181 at 4-6.) Judge Denney 16 recommends summary judgment in favor of Adkins, Garcia, and Contreras 17 because none of those defendants are medical providers, and the undisputed 18 facts show that they did not act unreasonably with regard to Mr. Powell’s thumb. 19 (Id. at 7-9; ECF No 182 at 9-10.) 20 Having reviewed both R&Rs and the record in this case, the Court is 21 satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err and adopts both R&Rs in full. 22 // 23 // 24 // 25 26 27 28 1 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation || (ECF No. 181) recommending summary judgment in favor of Defendants 3 || Seargeant Hood and John Adkins is accepted and adopted in full. 4 It is further ordered that the motion for summary judgment by Defendants 5 || Seargeant Hood and John Adkins (ECF No. 155) is granted. 6 It is further ordered Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 7 || 182) recommending summary judgment in favor of Defendants Rosina Garcia 8 || and Joanna Contreras is accepted and adopted in full. 9 It is further ordered that the motion for summary judgment by Defendants 10 || Rosina Garcia and Joanna Contreras (ECF No. 158) is granted. 11 12 Dated this 31st day of March 2023. 13 14 en Ana plod) 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28