Scott v. Quigley

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 JAMES EDWARD SCOTT, III, Case No. 3:23-cv-00264-ART-CLB

8 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 30) 9 v. 10 QUIGLEY, et al., 11 Defendants. 12 Pro se Plaintiff James Edward Scott, III sued Defendants Robert Quigley 13 (“Quigley”) and Melissa Mitchell (“Mitchell”) for allegedly violating his Fourteenth 14 Amendment Due Process rights by disclosing existence of Scott’s end-stage renal 15 disease in front of other inmates. Defendants moved for summary judgment 16 based on qualified immunity. (ECF Nos. 23, 25.) Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin 17 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending granting 18 Defendants’ motion. (ECF No. 30.) Scott did not file a response to the motion for 19 summary judgment or an objection to Judge Baldwin’s R&R. 20 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a Court “may accept, reject, or modify, 21 in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate 22 judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where, as here, neither party objects to a magistrate 23 judge's recommendation, the district court is not required to perform any review 24 of that judge's conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). 25 Because Scott has not objected to the R&R, the Court is not required to 26 conduct any review. The Court finds Judge Baldwin’s reasoning persuasive and 27 adopts the R&R. 28 // 1 || CONCLUSION 2 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s report and recommendation 3 || (ECF No. 30) is adopted. 4 Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 23) is 5 || granted. 6 The Clerk of Court is instructed to enter judgment accordingly and close 7 || this case. 8 9 DATED: May 21, 2025 10 11 en 12 Aru / 13 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28