1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 3 4 DEVIN J. REESE, 5 Plaintiff, 3:24-cv-00015-ART-CSD 6 vs. 7 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND WASHOE COUNTY DETENTON RECOMMENDATION (ECF No. 36) 8 FACILITY, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Devin J. Reese filed this civil rights suit against multiple 12 defendants, including Naphcare, Deputy Rimon, Deputy John Doe, and Deputy Jane 13 Doe, alleging excessive force and inadequate medical care while Plaintiff was a 14 detainee in custody at the Washoe County Detention Facility (“WCDF”). On July 11, 15 2025, Magistrate Judge Denney issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R) 16 recommending that Defendant Rimon’s motion for summary judgment be granted 17 and this action be dismissed without prejudice. (ECF No. 36.) Plaintiff had until July 18 25, 2025, to file an objection. To date, no objections have been filed. For this reason, 19 and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R. 20 21 Under the Federal Magistrates Act, a court “may accept, reject, or modify, in 22 whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by [a] magistrate judge.” 28

(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and 24 recommendation, then the court is required to “make a de novo determination of 25 those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28

(b)(1). A court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any 27 1 issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn,

, 149 2 (1985). 3 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review and 4 is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney recommends 5 granting Defendant’s motion because Plaintiff did not exhaust his administrative 6 remedies. (ECF No. 36 at 8–9.) Plaintiff argues the availability of the appeal process to 7 a WCDF inmate is dependent on the response to the initial grievance and limitations 8 imposed by the system regarding the time to file an appeal or the premature closing 9 of a grievance. (ECF No. 32 at 3.) Specifically, Plaintiff states that because he received 10 a response to his grievance, there was no reply window and no time frame for an 11 appeal because the grievance was considered resolved. (Id.) Consequently, Plaintiff 12 argues that the appellate process was not available to him and thus, he exhausted all 13 available administrative remedies. (Id. at 3–4.) However, as provided in the inmate 14 handbook, Plaintiff could have filed another grievance to effectuate his appeal. (ECF 15 No. 29-1 at 20.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney that the grievance process, 16 including the ability to file an appeal of a grievance response, was available to 17 Plaintiff, but he did not complete the appeal process, and thus, failed to exhaust 18 administrative remedies before filing this action. Having reviewed the R&R and the 19 record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 20 21 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Denney’s Report and 22 Recommendation (ECF No. 36) is accepted and adopted in full. 23 Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. 24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this case is DISMISSED WITHOUT 25 PREJUDICE; and, 26 27 1 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk enter judgment accordingly and close 2 || this case. 3 : Dated this 30th day of September 2025.

: Pc Nast’ ANNE R.TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27