Hamilton v. Nevada, State of

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * GREGORY HAMILTON, Case No. 3:19-cv-00380-MMD-WGC 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. GODINEZ, Defendant.

11 Pro se Plaintiff Gregory Hamilton brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 34), recommending the Court deny Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 24 (“Motion”)). Plaintiff had until April 29, 2021 to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed.1 For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will deny the Motion.

18 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends denying the Motion in part because Plaintiff is already proceeding on a count materially identical to Count I in his proposed amended complaint. (ECF No. 34 at 4.) As to Plaintiff’s proposed Count II, Judge Cobb notes that Plaintiff’s allegations are insufficient to satisfy the legal elements of the claims he attempts to assert. (Id. at 5-6.) Judge Cobb also recommends Plaintiff be given an opportunity to decide whether he wishes to proceed with his claim against Godinez instead of a different Corrections Officer because the only Godinez that worked for the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) appears to have left his employment before the incident giving rise to this case occurred. (Id. at 6-7.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.

15 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34) is accepted and adopted in full.

17 It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file an amended complaint (ECF No. 24) is denied.

19 It is further ordered that Plaintiff must file, by May 19, 2021, a notice with the Court indicating whether he intends to pursue this action against Godinez considering the Attorney General’s representation that Godinez did not work at NDOC at the time when this incident allegedly took place. The Court refers Plaintiff’s anticipated notice to Judge Cobb for consideration.

24 DATED THIS 6th Day of May 2021.

27 MIRANDA M. DU