1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JARED EDWARD BEEBE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00038-MMD-WGC

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF 9 CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al.,

Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Jared Beebe filed a civil rights complaint under

. 12 (ECF No. 10.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 13 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 92), 14 recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) be granted. 15 Beebe had until November 15, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R 16 has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts Judge Cobb’s 17 R&R and will grant summary judgment to Defendants. 18 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 19 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 20 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 21 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 22 v. Arn,

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

, 23 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 24 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 25 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 26 Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 27 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 28 /// 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 || satisfied Judge Cobb did not clearly err. Here, Judge Cobb recommends that Defendants’ 3 || motion for summary judgment be granted because: 1) Defendants are entitled to 4 || summary judgment insofar as they are sued in their official capacities, 2) Defendant 5 || Wilcoxen is entitled to summary judgment as he was unaware that denial of Beebe’s 6 || request to use the restroom would pose a risk to Beebe’s health, and 3) Defendant Suwe 7 || is entitled to summary judgment as temporary deprivation of restroom access does not 8 || constitute a sufficiently serious deprivation under the Eighth Amendment's objective 9 || prong analysis. (ECF No. 92 at 5-15.) The Court agrees with Judge Cobb. Having 10 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 11 It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 12 || 92) is accepted and adopted in full. 13 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) 14 || is granted. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. 16 DATED THIS Day of November 2021. 17 18 —“ 49 ff ( A MIRANBA M. DU 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28