Steve Murray v. Kenneth Williams, et al.

Opinion

5 * * * 6 STEVE MURRAY, Case No.: 3:25-cv-00123-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 KENNETH WILLIAMS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Steve Murray, who is currently incarcerated in the custody of the 12 Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) at Northern Nevada Correctional Center 13 (“NNCC”), filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Dr. Benson, Dr. 14 Voss, Dr. Bijjula, Dr. Williams, Director of Nursing (“DON”) Lucas, DON Isaacson, 15 Brendal, John Doe 1 (when his or her identity is learned), Medekith, Kris, and John Doe 16 2 (when his or her identity is learned) for prison officials’ failure to implement procedures 17 to regulate and treat Murray’s blood cancer. (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1, 6.) The Court allowed him 18 to proceed on Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims. 19 (ECF No. 5 (“Screening Order”).) Murray subsequently filed a motion for temporary 20 restraining order (“TRO”) and/or preliminary injunction (“PI”) asserting inadequate 21 treatment by prison medical personnel for his blood cancer and seeking an order that he 22 be scheduled for an appointment with an oncologist and permitted to undergo regular 23 phlebotomies until his cancer returns to remission. (ECF Nos. 10, 11; see also ECF No. 24 28 at 3.) The Court denied Murray’s motions for TRO and PI because he has been 25 receiving regular treatment from his oncologist, Dr. Bijjula. (ECF No. 30.) Murray then 26 filed a document entitled “judicial notice” (ECF No. 40), which the Court construes as a 27 request for injunctive relief, requesting the Court order NDOC medical personnel to 28 comply with his oncologist’s orders—specifically, that Murray be administered 1 Hydroxyurea, a chemotherapy medication, and Boost protein shakes, a ready-to-drink 2 nutritional beverage, to regulate his blood levels.1 Now, before the Court is the Report 3 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF 4 No. 45), recommending the Court deny Murray’s request. (ECF No. 45 at 1, 3-5.) To date, 5 no objections to the R&R have been filed. Because there is no objection, and, as further 6 explained below, the Court will adopt the R&R. 7 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and is 8 satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 9 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 10 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 11 findings and recommendations.” (emphasis in original)). Judge Denney recommends the 12 Court deny Murray’s request because he has not satisfied the requirements for injunctive 13 relief.2 (ECF No. 45 at 3.) There is insufficient evidence to support Murray’s claim that 14 NDOC medical staff are failing to comply with his oncologist’s orders. (Id.) Defendants 15 have provided evidence confirming that Dr. Bijjula prescribed Hydroxyurea three times 16 weekly, which Murray is receiving as directed. (Id. at 4.) As to the Boost shakes, Murray 17 receives a double-portion, high-protein diet that provides the same nutritional benefits as 18 Boost—a commercial beverage. (Id. at 4-5.) As Judge Denney points out, Murray fails to 19 provide evidence showing that the alternate protein-based diet administered by NDOC 20 medical providers is “medically unacceptable under the circumstances.” (Id. at 5); see 21 also Hamby v. Hammond, 821 F.3d 1085, 1092 (9th Cir. 2016) (internal quotation marks 22 and citation omitted). Having reviewed the R&R, Judge Denney did not clearly err. 23 24 1Defendants filed a response. (ECF No. 43.) 25 2A preliminary injunction is an “extraordinary remedy” that is “never awarded as of 26 right.” Earth Island Inst. v. Carlton, 626 F.3d 462, 469 (9th Cir. 2010) (quoting Winter v. 27 Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 22, 32 (2008)). To qualify for preliminary injunctive relief, a plaintiff must establish: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) likelihood of 28 irreparable harm; (3) that the balance of equities tips in his favor; and (4) that an injunction 1 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 2 || No. 45) is accepted and adopted in full. 3 It is further ordered that Murray’s request for injunctive relief (ECF No. 40) is 4 || denied. 5 DATED THIS 7" Day of November 2025. 6 9 MIRANDAM.DU—ss—s—S 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28