2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5 * * *

6 GREGORY WEST ENTSMINGER, Case No. 3:21-cv-00295-MMD-CLB

7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 I. SUMMARY 12 Pro se Plaintiff Gregory West Entsminger brings this civil rights lawsuit to redress 13 constitutional violations that he alleges he suffered while incarcerated at Northern Nevada 14 Correctional Center (“NNCC”). (ECF No. 11.) Before the Court is the Report and 15 Recommendation (ECF No. 61 (“R&R”)) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla 16 Baldwin, recommending the Court grant Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF 17 No. 43 (“Motion”)). The Court granted Plaintiff an extension of time to November 6, 2024 18 to file an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 64.) To date, Plaintiff has failed to file an 19 objection. For this reason, and because the Court finds Judge did not clearly err, the Court 20 adopts the R&R and grants Defendants’ Motion. 21 II. BACKGROUND 22 On April 22, 2022, the Court screened Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint and 23 permitted Plaintiff to proceed with three claims: (1) an Eighth Amendment deliberate 24 indifference to serious medical needs claim related to treatment of injury to his hand after 25 symptoms developed; (2) a First Amendment retaliation claim; and (3) an official-capacity 26 claim for injunctive relief challenging NNCC’s “kite only” policy requiring the submission 27 of a kite to seek medical attention. (ECF No. 10 at 8-14.) Further factual background as 28 2 adopts. 3 The Court briefly summarize the relevant procedural history to underscore the 4 numerous extensions of deadlines to allow Plaintiff to fully participate in the summary 5 judgment proceedings. On May 3, 2024, Defendants filed their motion for summary 6 judgment. (ECF No. 43.) Because Plaintiff did not respond and mail sent to Plaintiff’s 7 address was returned as undeliverable, the Court stayed the briefing schedule on 8 Defendants’ Motion pending Plaintiff’s filing of his change of address. (ECF No. 52.) 9 Plaintiff complied and updated his address. (ECF No. 54.) On July 8, 2024, the Magistrate 10 Judge set a briefing schedule on Defendants’ Motion, giving Plaintiff until August 5, 2024, 11 to respond to the Motion. (ECF No. 55.) On August 5, 2024, Plaintiff requested a 60-day 12 extension of time to file his response. (ECF No. 57.) The Magistrate Judge granted his 13 request, extending the response deadline to October 4, 2024. (ECF No. 60.) Plaintiff did 14 not file a response by that deadline. After the Magistrate Judge issued the R&R on 15 October 8, 2024, the Court granted Plaintiff’s request for extension of time to November 16 6, 2024, to file an objection. (ECF No. 64.) On November 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed response 17 to the R&R wherein he describes “hardships” that affect his ability to respond to 18 Defendants’ Motion and states he has “already started the drafting of the motion” asking 19 for the Magistrate Judge to allow this case to proceed. (ECF No. 65 at 6.) Plaintiff states 20 he would file his “Opposition within 2 weeks or less.” (Id.) The docket reflects that was the 21 last filing by Plaintiff. 22 III. DISCUSSION 23 The Magistrate Judge considered Defendants’ arguments and supporting 24 evidence in recommending granting Defendants’ Motion. (ECF No. 61.) Because there is 25 no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied that Judge 26 Baldwin did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia,

(9th 27 Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is 28 required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and 1 || recommendations.”) (emphasis in original)). As to the first claim for deliberate indifference 2 || to medical needs, Judge Baldwin concluded that the evidence offered, including medical 3 || records, compels a finding that Defendants met their burden to show they took extensive 4 || actions to treat Plaintiffs hand after they were informed of the symptoms. (ECF No. 61 at 5 || 9.) Judge Baldwin recommends granting summary judgment because Plaintiff did not 6 || respond to challenge Defendants’ evidence or to show any genuine issue of fact for trial. 7 || (/d.) Judge Baldwin recommends granting summary judgment on the second claim for 8 || First Amendment retaliation for the same reason—Defendants met their burden to show 9 || both an absence of knowledge or involvement in the protected activity and any chilling 10 || effect. (/d. at 11.) Finally, Judge Baldwin recommends dismissing the third claim for 11 || injunctive relief as to the “kite only” policy as moot because Plaintiff was released from 12 || custody. (/d. at 12.) 13 Having reviewed Defendants’ Motion and supporting evidence, the Court finds that 14 || Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. The Court will accordingly adopt the R&R in full. 15 || IV. CONCLUSION 16 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 17 || No. 61) is accepted and adopted in full. 18 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 43) 19 || is granted. 20 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and 21 || close this case. 22 DATED THIS Day of February 2025. 23 C . 24 25 MIRANDA M. DU UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 28