1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JAQUAN BARNES, Case No. 3:18-cv-00390-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 WILLIAM GETTIERR, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff JaQuan Barnes brings this action under

. Before 12 the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United 13 States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 45), recommending the Court grant 14 Defendants’ case-dispositive summary judgment motion (ECF No. 36 (“Motion”)), 15 primarily because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies. Plaintiff had until 16 October 13, 2020 to file an objection. (ECF No. 45.) To date, no objection to the R&R has 17 been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, will grant 18 Defendants’ Motion, and direct entry of judgment in their favor. 19 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 20 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 21 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 22 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 23 v. Arn,

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

, 24 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 25 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 26 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 27 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends granting 3 Defendants’ unopposed summary judgment motion because the evidence proffered by 4 Defendants shows Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative remedies, and, alternatively, 5 Defendants proffered sufficient evidence to establish that Plaintiff’s claims fail on their 6 merits. (ECF No. 45 at 4-8.) Judge Baldwin also correctly noted that Plaintiff “was advised 7 of his obligations to respond to the motion for summary judgment, [but Plaintiff] failed to 8 do so.” (Id. at 2.) More generally, Judge Baldwin properly evaluated the merits of 9 Defendants’ Motion even though Plaintiff did not file a response. (See generally id.) The 10 Court agrees with Judge Baldwin’s analysis. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in 11 this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 12 It is therefore ordered that Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin’s Report and 13 Recommendation (ECF No. 45) is accepted and adopted in full. 14 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 36) 15 is granted. 16 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. 17 DATED THIS 21st Day of October 2020. 18 19

20 MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21

22 23 24 25 26 27