1

2

3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

6 PAUL SCOTT KLEIN, Case No. 3:23-cv-387-ART-CSD 7 Plaintiff, vs. ORDER ADOPTING REPORT 8 AND RECOMMENDATION OF STATE OF NEVADA, et al., MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 (ECF No. 35) Defendants. 10 11 Plaintiff Paul Scott Klein brings this action under

, alleging 12 that while at Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”), he was exposed to 13 extreme heat and cold, as well as dust, allergens, mold, and other air quality 14 issues in violation of his Eighth Amendment rights. (ECF Nos. 3, 3-1, 17, 17-1). 15 Mr. Klein subsequently filed an emergency motion for a temporary restraining 16 order or preliminary injunction. (ECF Nos. 20 and 21.)1 Magistrate Judge Denney 17 issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending denial of Mr. 18 Klein’s motion for preliminary injunction. (ECF No. 35.) Mr. Klein moved for an 19 extension of time to object to Judge Denney’s R&R (ECF No. 38), and was granted 20 an extension until October 31, 2025. (ECF No. 39.) The deadline has now passed, 21 and Mr. Klein has not submitted an objection. 22 Magistrate judges are empowered to issue reports and recommendations 23 on dispositive issues, which district judges may “accept, reject, or modify, in 24 whole or in part.”

(b)(1)(C). Where, as here, neither party objects 25 to a magistrate judge's recommendation, the district court is not required to 26 perform any review of that judge's conclusions. See Thomas v. Arn,

, 27 1 While these documents are identical, they were docketed separately to reflect 28 the two forms of relief sought. 1 |} 150 (1985). Because Plaintiff has not objected, the Court conducts no review of 2 || Judge Denney’s R&R and adopts it in full. 3 Judge Denney recommends denial of Mr. Franklin’s motion for preliminary 4 || injunction on several grounds, including that: it is not clear what relief Plaintiff 5 || is seeking, Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits, 6 || Plaintiff has not adequately demonstrated irreparable harm, Plaintiff has not 7 || shown that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and Plaintiff has not shown 8 || that preliminary relief is in the public interest. (ECF No. 35.) In short, Mr. 9 || Franklin’s motion has not satisfied the four-factor test for issuance of Temporary 10 || Restraining Orders and preliminary injunctions identified in Winter v. Natural 11 || Resources Defense Council, Inc.

(2008). 12 Because this motion is denied without prejudice, Plaintiff is not precluded 13 || from filing another motion for preliminary injunction with more specific facts. 14 It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation 15 || (ECF No. 35) is ADOPTED. 16 It is further ordered that Plaintiffs motion for a temporary restraining order 17 || or preliminary injunction (ECF Nos. 20, 21) is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 18 Dated this lst day of December, 2025. 19 20 Aras plod Td 21 ANNER TRAUM 29 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28