Proctor v. Van Horn et al

Filing 117

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - Defendants' # 88 Motion for leave to file medical documents under seal is granted; # 116 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff's # 75 Disp ositive Motion is denied; Defendants' # 89 Motion for summary judgment is granted in part and denied in part (see pdf order for specifics), and claims remain for trial as specified herein. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/26/2015. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

CHARLES JUAN PROCTOR,

Case No. 3:12-cv-00328-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
VAN HORN, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING AND ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
WILLIAM G. COBB

Defendants.

12
13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate

16

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 116) (“R&R”) relating to plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion

17

(dkt. no. 75) and defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (“Motion”) (dkt.no. 89). No

18

objection to the R&R has been filed. Also before the Court is Defendants’ motion for

19

leave to file confidential documents in support of their Motion under seal. (Dkt. no. 88.)

20

II.

DISCUSSION

21

This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or

22

recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party

23

timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is

24

required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and

25

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

26

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

27

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985).

28

Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a

1

magistrate judge’s report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See

2

United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard

3

of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to

4

which no objections were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219,

5

1226 (D. Ariz. 2003) (reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the

6

view that district courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an

7

objection.”). Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then

8

the court may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F.

9

Supp. 2d at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to

10

which no objection was filed).

11

Nevertheless, this Court finds it appropriate to engage in a de novo review to

12

determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge Cobb’s R&R. Upon reviewing the R&R

13

and underlying briefs, this Court finds good cause to adopt the Magistrate Judge’s R&R

14

in full.

15

Defendants’ motion to file confidential documents requests leave to file Plaintiff’s

16

medical documents under seal. The Court finds that Defendants have demonstrated

17

good cause to support their request and grants the motion.

18

III.

It is therefore ordered that Defendants’ motion for leave to file confidential

19
20

CONCLUSION

documents under seal (dkt. no. 88) is granted.
It is ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation of

21
22

Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 116) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

23

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s Dispositive Motion (dkt. no. 75) is denied.

24

It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion (dkt. no. 89) is granted in part and

25

denied in part as follows:
(1)

26
27

Elliott;

28

The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Lois

///
2

1

(2)

The Motion is granted as to Plaintiff’s claim against defendant Sonja

2

Missy Gleason (“Gleason”) related to her responses to Plaintiff’s June and July 2011

3

kites, and related to his claims regarding the cancellation of his appointments in August

4

and early September 2011;

5

(3)

The Motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s claim against defendant

6

Gleason related to her responses to Plaintiff’s kites in October, November and

7

December 2011, and the delay in Plaintiff being seen regarding his complaints of pain

8

during that time;

9

(4)

The Motion is denied as to Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Van Horn

10

related to Plaintiff’s kites in October, November and December 2011 and the delay in

11

Plaintiff being seen regarding his complaints of pain during that time; the Motion is

12

otherwise granted as to Dr. Van Horn;

13

(5)

The Motion is granted as to Dr. Karen Gedney;

14

(6)

The Motion is granted as to defendant Terri Jacobs;

15

(7)

The Motion is granted insofar as Plaintiff seeks to recover money

16

damages against Defendants in their official capacities.

17

In sum, the following claims remain for trial: Plaintiff’s claim against defendant

18

Gleason related to her responses to Plaintiff’s kites in October, November and

19

December 2011, and the delay in Plaintiff being seen regarding his complaints of pain

20

during that time; and Plaintiff’s claim against Dr. Van Horn related to Plaintiff’s kites in

21

October, November and December 2011 and the delay in Plaintiff being seen regarding

22

his complaints of pain during that time.

23

DATED THIS 26th day of March 2015.

24
25
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
3