Beebe v. N.D.O.C. Director

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEVADA * * *

JARED EDWARD BEEBE, Case No. 3:19-cv-00038-MMD-WGC Plaintiff, ORDER v.

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF

CORRECTIONS DIRECTOR, et al.,

Defendants.

Pro se Plaintiff Jared Beebe filed a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 10.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 92), recommending that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) be granted. Beebe had until November 15, 2021, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts Judge Cobb’s R&R and will grant summary judgment to Defendants.

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.”).

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 that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted because: 1) Defendants are entitled to summary judgment insofar as they are sued in their official capacities, 2) Defendant Wilcoxen is entitled to summary judgment as he was unaware that denial of Beebe’s request to use the restroom would pose a risk to Beebe’s health, and 3) Defendant Suwe is entitled to summary judgment as temporary deprivation of restroom access does not constitute a sufficiently serious deprivation under the Eighth Amendment's objective prong analysis. (ECF No. 92 at 5-15.) 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. It is therefore ordered that Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 92) is accepted and adopted in full.

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 79) is granted.

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. DATED THIS Day of November 2021.

—“

49 ff ( A

MIRANBA M. DU

CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE