1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * * 6 ANGEL GARCIA, Case No. 3:21-cv-00356-MMD-CSD

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 J. WEILAND, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Angel Garcia brings this action under

. (ECF No. 7.) 12 Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate 13 Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 72), recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ 14 motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50 (“Motion”)).1 Objections to the R&R were due 15 November 15, 2023. To date, no objection has been filed. For this reason, and as 16 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full. 17 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or 18 recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

(b)(1). Where a party 19 fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not required to 20 conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas 21 v. Arn,

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

, 22 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 23 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 24 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory 25 26 1Judge Denney further recommends denying Plaintiff’s counsel’s request, 27 presented in a declaration, to conduct limited discovery before responding to the Motion. (ECF No. 72 at 5-6.) The Court agrees, though this request is rendered moot by the 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 was no objection to the R&R, the Court need not conduct de novo 4 || review, and is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. Judge Denney found 5 || genuine issues of material facts preclude summary judgment on Plaintiff's Eighth 6 || Amendment claims alleging excessive use of force and deliberate indifference to serious 7 || medical needs, and on Defendants qualified immunity defense. (ECF No. 72 at 9-17.) 8 || Having reviewed the Motion and related briefs and the records in this case, the Court 9 || agrees with Judge Denney. 10 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 11 || No. 72) is accepted and adopted in full. 12 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 50) 13 || is denied. 14 DATED THIS 20" Day of November 2023.

16 □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ 17 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28