1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JACOB SMITH, Case No. 3:20-cv-00299-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Jacob Smith filed a civil rights complaint under

. 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of 13 United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 40), recommending that 14 Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) be denied, and that Defendant 15 John Doe 1 be dismissed without prejudice. Smith had until September 1, 2022, to file an 16 objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 17 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full, and will deny Defendants’ motion for 18 summary judgment and dismiss Defendant John Doe 1 without prejudice. 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 28 clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is 2 || satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney recommends denying 3 || Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) because there is a genuine 4 || issue of material fact as to whether Defendants employed a race-based classification in 5 || requesting Smith move to another unit in August 2019. (ECF No. 40 at 7-8.) Further, 6 || Judge Denney recommends the Court find Defendants are not entitled to qualified 7 || immunity because it was clearly established at the time that race-based classifications 8 || violate the Fourteenth Amendment’s equal protection clause if not supported by a 9 || demonstrated compelling government interest that is implemented by the least restrictive 10 || means. (/d. at 8.) Lastly, Judge Denney recommends that Defendant John Doe 1 be 11 || dismissed without prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m) because Smith 12 || failed to timely identify him or her. (/d. at 2.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney. Having 13 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 14 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 15 || No. 40) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 34) 17 || is denied. 18 It is further ordered that Defendant John Doe 1 is dismissed without prejudice. 19 DATED THIS 7" Day of September 2022. 20

22 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 33 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28