Guardado v. Dzurenda et al

Filing 42

ORDER Accepted and Adopting in full 41 Report and Recommendation. It is further ordered that Defendant's 38 Motion to Stay the Case is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 6/3/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ALZ)

Download PDF
1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 *** 6 7 8 9 10 ERNEST GUARDADO, Case No. 2:20-cv-01923-ART-DJA Plaintiff, v. ORDER JAMES DZURENDA, et al., Defendants. 11 Pro se Plaintiff Ernest Guardado brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 12 Plaintiff alleges that Defendants violated his Eighth Amendment rights by the 13 general lack of prompt medical treatment and by the denial of immediate medical 14 attention for a severe infection. Before the Court is the Report and 15 Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate 16 Judge Daniel J. Albregts (ECF No. 41), which recommends that this Court 17 dismiss Plaintiff’s case. The Court will adopt the R&R and dismiss the case. 18 The Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings 19 or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where 20 a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not 21 required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of 22 an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. 23 Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the 24 magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one 25 or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis 26 in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that 27 the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the 28 record in order to accept the recommendation.”). 1 1 Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 2 and is satisfied Judge Albregts did not clearly err. Here, Judge Albregts 3 recommends dismissing the case because Plaintiff failed to file a status report as 4 ordered by the Court and subsequently failed to respond to Judge Albregts’ order 5 to show cause why he should not recommend dismissing the case. (ECF No. 41 6 at 1.) The Court agrees with Judge Albregts. Having reviewed the R&R and the 7 record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. 8 9 10 11 12 It is therefore ordered that Judge Albregts’ Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 41) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Defendant’s Motion to Stay the Case (ECF No. 38) is denied as moot. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly. 13 14 15 DATED THIS 3rd Day of June 2024. 16 17 18 19 ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?