1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 GREGORY ALLAN HATFIELD, Case No. 3:19-cv-00531-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 DR. NAUGHTON, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Gregory Allan Hatfield brings this action under

. 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 13 United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 33), recommending the Court 14 grant Defendants’ pending motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26 (“Motion”)). 15 Plaintiff had until February 11, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no objection to the R&R 16 has been filed.1 For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and 17 will grant Defendants’ Motion. 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 1Hatfield also never filed a response to the Motion. However, the Court warned 27 him of the potentially dispositive consequences of the Motion (ECF No. 30), and Judge Baldwin granted him a sua sponte extension of time to respond to the Motion warning him 28 that the Motion would be submitted to the Court for decision if he did not file a response 1 || Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no 2 || 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 4 || satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends granting 5 || the Motion because Defendants proffered unrebutted evidence that Plaintiff was 6 || monitored—and then successfully treated—for Hepatitis C despite Plaintiff's initial 7 || allegations to the contrary. (ECF No. 33 at 7-9.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. 8 || Having reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 9 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 10 || No. 33) is accepted and adopted in full. 11 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 26) 12 || is granted. 13 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly—in Defendants’ 14 || favor—and close this case. 15 DATED THIS 24" Day of March 2022. 16

18 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28