1 2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 JOHN WALKER, Case No. 3:19-cv-00021-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 ISIDRO BACA, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff John Walker brings this action under

. Before the 12 Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States 13 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 91), primarily recommending that the Court 14 grant in part, and deny in part, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 80 15 (“Motion”)). The parties had until November 1, 2022, to file an objection. To date, no 16 objections to the R&R have been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court 17 adopts the R&R, and will grant Walker’s request for voluntary dismissal of the retaliation 18 claims against Sorich and Joncas in Count II, deny Walker’s request to deny or hold in 19 abeyance Defendants’ Motion under Rule 56(d), and grant in part, and deny in part, 20 Defendants’ Motion. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 22 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 23 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 24 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 25 v. Arn,

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

, 26 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 27 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 28 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 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 Denney did not clearly err. Judge Denney first notes that Walker stated in 5 response to the Motion that he voluntarily withdrew his retaliation claims against Sorich 6 and Joncas, so Judge Denney recommends that those claims be dismissed without 7 prejudice. (ECF No. 91 at 3.) Judge Denney next recommends that Walker’s request to 8 deny or hold in abeyance Defendants’ motion for summary judgment under Rule 56(d) 9 should be denied because Walker was given many extensions of time to complete 10 discovery and his request does not otherwise meet the requirements of Rule 56(d). (Id. 11 at 6.) Judge Denney then analyzes, in detail, Defendants’ Motion, recommending that it 12 be granted in part and denied in part. (Id. at 6-19.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney. 13 Having 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. 91) is accepted and adopted in full. 16 It is further ordered that Walker’s request for voluntary dismissal of his retaliation 17 claims against Sorich and Joncas in Count II is granted. Those claims against those two 18 Defendants are dismissed without prejudice. 19 It is further ordered that Walker’s request to deny or hold in abeyance Defendants’ 20 Motion under Rule 56(d) is denied. 21 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion (ECF No. 80) is granted in part, and 22 denied, in part, as specified below. 23 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is granted as to the Eighth Amendment 24 deliberate indifference to serious medical needs claims in Count II against Dr. Naughton 25 and Sorich, and the Eighth Amendment conditions of confinement claim against Walsh in 26 Count III because Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as to these 27 claims. 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is granted as to the Eighth Amendment 2 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning ventilation against Walsh and 3 Dzurenda. 4 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is granted as to the Eighth Amendment 5 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning broken windows against Walsh and 6 Dzurenda. 7 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is granted as to the Eighth Amendment 8 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning broken doors against Ward, Walsh, 9 Mooney, Mattice, and Dzurenda. 10 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is granted as to the Eighth Amendment 11 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning ceiling tiles against Ward, Walsh, 12 Mattice and, Dzurenda. 13 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is granted as to the Eighth Amendment 14 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning asbestos against Baca, Ward, 15 Walsh, Mooney, Mattice, and Dzurenda. 16 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is denied as to the Eighth Amendment 17 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning broken windows against Baca, 18 Ward, Mooney, and Mattice. 19 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is denied as to the Eighth Amendment 20 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning broken doors against Baca. 21 It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion is denied as to the Eighth Amendment 22 conditions of confinement claim in Count I concerning ceiling tiles against Mooney and 23 Baca. 24 /// 25 /// 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 1 It is further ordered that, pursuant to LR 16-5, the Court finds it appropriate to refer 2 || this case to Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney to conduct a settlement conference. If the 3 || parties do not settle, the Joint Pretrial Order is due within 30 days of the date the 4 || settlement conference is held. 5 DATED THIS 7" Day of November 2022. 6

8 MIRANDAM.DU- ————<“—i— 9 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28