2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON, Case No. 3:22-cv-00108-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CORNFIELD, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 In this action filed under

, the Court permitted Plaintiff Lausteveion 12 Johnson to proceed with three claims: (1) First Amendment retaliation; (2) Eighth 13 Amendment unsafe prison conditions; and (3) Fourteenth Amendment equal protection. 14 (ECF No. 4 at 9-16.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States 15 Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 26) (“R&R”), recommending the Court deny 16 Plaintiff’s emergency motion for preliminary injunction (ECF No.10) and his two motions 17 for oral argument (ECF Nos. 17, 18). Plaintiff had until November 24, 2022, to file an 18 objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 26.) To date, Plaintiff has not filed an objection to the 19 R&R. 20 This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 21 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 22 fails to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any 23 issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

(1985); 24 see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review 25 of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or 26 both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); 27 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, advisory committee note to 1983 amendments (providing that the court 28 1 || “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to 2 || accept the recommendation’). 3 Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to 4 || determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Denney’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R 5 || and records in this case, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s 6 || R&R in full. Judge Denney correctly found that the relief Plaintiff requested—involving 7 || calculation of good-time credit—is unrelated to the claims that the Court allowed to 8 || proceed in its screening order. 9 It is therefore ordered, adjudged, and decreed that the Report and 10 || Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 26) is accepted and 11 || adopted in full. 12 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs emergency motion for preliminary injunction 13 || (ECF No. 10) and motions for oral argument (ECF Nos. 17, 18) are denied. 14 DATED THIS 13'" Day of January 2023. 15

17 MIRANDA M. DU 18 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

95