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)

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