1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

6 PAUL SCOTT KLEIN, Case No. 3:23-cv-337-ART-CSD 7 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 8 AND RECOMMENDATION OF MICHAEL FLAMM, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 (ECF No. 71) Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Paul Scott Klein brings this action under

, alleging 12 that Defendants Correctional Officer Michael Flamm and Correctional Officer 13 Jose Garcia retaliated against him in violation of the First Amendment. (ECF Nos. 14 3, 4, 22, 23, 26.) Mr. Klein subsequently filed an emergency motion for a 15 temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction, seeking an order to: (1) 16 prevent the Nevada Department of Corrections (“NDOC”) from transferring him to 17 another facility without a hearing and (2) require NDOC to return him to his 18 previous medical classifications. (ECF Nos. 52, 53).1 After Defendants responded 19 (ECF Nos. 68, 69), Magistrate Judge Denney issued a Report and 20 Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending denial of Mr. Klein’s motion for 21 preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 71). Mr. Klein moved for an extension of time to 22 object to Judge Denney’s R&R (ECF No. 77), and was granted an extension until 23 October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 79.) The deadline has now passed, and Mr. Klein has 24 not submitted an objection. 25 Magistrate judges are empowered to issue reports and recommendations 26 on dispositive issues, which district judges may “accept, reject, or modify, in 27 1 While these documents are identical, they were docketed separately to reflect 28 the two forms of relief sought. 1 || whole or in part.”

(b)(1)(C). Where, as here, neither party objects 2 || to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court is not required to 3 || perform any review of that judge's conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn,

, 4 || 150 (1985). Because Plaintiff has not objected, the Court conducts no review of 5 || Judge Denney’s R&R and adopts it in full. 6 Judge Denney recommends denial of Mr. Franklin’s motion for a temporary 7 || restraining order or preliminary injunction on the grounds that Plaintiff failed to 8 || adequately demonstrate a nexus between the allegations in his complaint and 9 || the allegations in his motion for injunctive relief. The Court notes that to succeed 10 |} on a motion for injunctive relief, there must be a connection between the 11 || allegations in the complaint and the specific facts forming the basis of the 12 || preliminary injunction. Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queens Medical Center, 13 |}

(9th Cir 2015). A court can only grant a temporary restraining 14 || order or preliminary injunction where the relief requested is of the same nature 15 || as the relief which could be granted finally in the case.

16 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 17 || (ECF No. 71) is ADOPTED. 18 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order 19 || or preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 52, 53) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 20 Dated this 3rd day of November, 2025. 21 ee 29 Aras plot? 23 ANNER TRAUM 24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 25 26 27 28