2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 DARIO RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 3:16-cv-00143-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8

9 ADAM ENDEL, et al.,

10 Defendants.

11

12 Pro Se Plaintiff Dario Rodriguez, an inmate in the custody of the Nevada 13 Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) who is currently housed at the Columbia Correction 14 Institution in Lake City, Florida brings this action under

for events that 15 occurred at Ely State Prison (“ESP”). (ECF No. 27.) Before the Court is the Report and 16 Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 17 114) recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment 18 (“Motion”) (ECF No. 101). Plaintiff had until May 27, 2020, to file an objection. To date, no 19 objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court 20 adopts the R&R and grants the Motion. 21 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the Court is 24 required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and 25 recommendation] to which objection is made.”

(b)(1). Where a party fails 26 to object, however, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue 27 that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); see also 28 United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 1 || magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both 2 || parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. 3 || R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy 4 || itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the 5 || recommendation’). 6 Nevertheless, the Court conducts de novo review to determine whether to accept 7 || the R&R. Judge Baldwin found that Plaintiff failed to provide any evidence that he was 8 || placed in disciplinary segregation because of false allegations. (ECF No. 114 at 8.) Judge 9 || Baldwin determined that Plaintiff did not provide any evidence showing that his term in 10 || disciplinary segregation was an atypical and significant hardship. (/d.) Judge Baldwin also 11 || found that Plaintiff's excessive force claim is unexhausted because he never filed a first 12 || or second level grievance, and he failed to produce evidence that ESP’s administrative 13 || remedies were unavailable to him. (/d. at 11-12.) Because Plaintiff failed to provide 14 || evidence supporting his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims, Judge Baldwin found 15 || no genuine issue of material fact exists regarding Plaintiff's claims. (/d. at 8, 12.) For these 16 || reasons, Judge Baldwin recommends that Defendants’ Motion be granted. (/d. at 13.) 17 || Upon reviewing the R&R and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt Judge 18 || Baldwin’s recommendation in full. 19 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 20 || 114) is adopted in its entirety. 21 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 101) 22 || is granted. 23 It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in accordance with this 24 || order and close this case. 25 DATED THIS 1* day of June 2020. 26 {Gay 27 A MIRANDA M. DU 28 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE