1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3 JASMINE PAUL SANCHEZ, Case No. 3:22-cv-00076-ART-CSD

4 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 5 ELY STATE PRISON MEDICAL, et al., 6 Defendants. 7 8 Pro se Plaintiff Jasmine Paul Sanchez brings this action under 42 U.S.C. 9 § 1983 claiming that Defendants Jamie Ciciliano and Dawn Jones violated his 10 Eighth Amendment rights and were deliberately indifferent to his serious medical 11 needs. Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to give him access to 12 a needed inhaler and failed to provide treatment and pain medication for a 13 broken arm. Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or 14 “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 15 56), recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 16 38) be granted. Plaintiff did not oppose Defendants’ Motion for Summary 17 Judgment. Plaintiff had until May 13, 2024 to file an objection to Judge Denney’s 18 R&R. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as 19 explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will grant Defendants’ Motion 20 for Summary Judgment. 21 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 22 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.”

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

(1985); see also United States v. 26 Reyna-Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 27 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 28 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 1 || in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 2 || the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 3 || record in order to accept the recommendation’). 4 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review 5 || and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney 6 || recommends granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment because 7 || Plaintiff has not provided any evidence on response to create a genuine dispute 8 || of material fact on either of his claims. (ECF No. 56 at 7.) Plaintiff did not file a 9 || response to Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment pointing to any evidence 10 || supporting his claims. The Court therefore agrees with Judge Denney. Having 11 || reviewed the R&R and the record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in 12 || full. 13 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judge Denney’s Report and 14 || Recommendation (ECF No. 56) is accepted and adopted in full. 15 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary 16 || Judgment (ECF No. 38) is GRANTED. 17 The Clerk of the Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 18 19 DATED THIS 29t) day of May 2024. 20 a1 Yrs □ [lod 1d 22 ANNE R. TRAUM 93 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24 25 26 27 28