2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 PETER M. BERGNA, Case No. 3:17-cv-00412-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiffs, ORDER v. 8

9 MARSHA JOHNS, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11

12 Pro Se Plaintiff Peter M. Bergna, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada 13 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) and currently housed at the Northern Nevada 14 Correctional Center (“NNCC”), brings this action under

. Before the Court 15 is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla 16 Baldwin (ECF No. 46) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for 17 summary judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 35). Plaintiff had until March 12, 2020, to file 18 objections. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 19 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and grants the Motion. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 22 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 23 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 24 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). Where a party fails 25 to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 26 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also 27 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 28 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both 1 || parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. 2 || R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy 3 || itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 4 || recommendation’). 5 Nevertheless, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept 6 || the R&R. Judge Baldwin found that Plaintiff failed to show that Defendants knowingly 7 || disregarded his medical condition. (ECF No. 46 at 8-9.) Judge Baldwin determined that 8 || Defendants fully addressed Plaintiff's chronic pain management needs. (/d.) Judge 9 || Baldwin also determined that Plaintiff failed to provide evidence that Defendants had no 10 || justifiable medical reason for removing his wheelchair. (/d. at 10.) Because Plaintiff now 11 || has a medical prescription for the wheelchair and because the wheelchair was later 12 || returned to Plaintiff, Judge Baldwin found no genuine issue of material fact exists 13 || regarding Defendants’ removal of the wheelchair. (/d.) For these reasons, Judge Baldwin 14 || recommends that Defendants’ Motion be granted. (/d. at 11.) Upon reviewing the R&R and 15 || underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge Baldwin’s recommendation 16 || in full. 17 Itis therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 18 || 46) is adopted in its entirety. 19 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 35) 20 || is granted. 21 The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this 22 || case. 23 DATED THIS 20" day of March 2020. 24 25 {Ga 26 MIRANDA M. DU 27 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28