England v. Baca et al

Filing 54

ORDER - The # 48 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted in full. Defendants' # 36 Motion for Summary Judgment is granted. Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/25/2016. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

***

8

WILLIAM ENGLAND,
Plaintiff,

9
10

Case No. 3:14-cv-00189-MMD-WGC

v.
ISIDRO BACA, et. al.,

11

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

Defendants.

12
13

I.

SUMMARY

14

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

15

Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 48) (“R&R”) relating to Defendants’ Motion for Summary

16

Judgment (“Motion”) (dkt. no. 36). The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objection (dkt. no.

17

52) and Defendants’ response (dkt. nos. 53). The Court accepts and adopts the R&R in

18

full.

19

II.

BACKGROUND

20

Plaintiff is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections

21

(“NDOC”). He is proceeding pro se in this action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983

22

and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). The

23

Court permitted Plaintiff to proceed on two claims under the First Amendment’s Free

24

Exercise Clause and RLUIPA. Plaintiff’s allegations and Defendants’ responses are

25

explained in detail in the R&R, which this Court adopts. (Dkt. no. 48 at 2, 6-8.)

26

III.

LEGAL STANDARD

27

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

28

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

1

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

2

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

3

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In light of Plaintiffs’

4

objections, the Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt

5

Magistrate Judge Cobb’s recommendation. Where a party fails to object, however, the

6

court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject

7

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has

8

recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and

9

recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-

10

Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by

11

the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections

12

were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)

13

(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district

14

courts are not required to review “any issue that is not the subject of an objection.”).

15

Thus, if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court

16

may accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d

17

at 1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no

18

objection was filed).

19

IV.

DISCUSSION

20

The Magistrate Judge recommends granting Defendants’ Motion, as follows: (1)

21

claims for damages under RLUIPA; (2) claims for damages against Defendants in their

22

official capacities; (3) claims for injunctive relief under RLUIPA because Plaintiff’s

23

transfer has rendered the conditions alleged in the Complaint moot; and (4) claims under

24

the Free Exercise Clause. (Dkt. no. 48.) Plaintiff’s objection addresses the Magistrate

25

Judge’s recommendation as to the claims under the Free Exercise Clause. The Court

26

has reviewed the R&R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.

27

Plaintiff’s Free Exercise Clause claims are based on Defendants’ decision in July

28

2013 to deny: (count I) Plaintiff access to the chapel, gym or activity room nightly for the
2

1

thirty days of Ramadan for the reading of the Quran and the breaking of the evening

2

fast; and (count II) Plaintiff and other inmates the opportunity to participate in their

3

Islamic Eid al-Fitr feast according to Islam law even though Defendants initially approved

4

such participation and Plaintiff and other inmates spent their money preparing for the

5

feast. (Dkt. no. 4 at 4, 11-12; dkt. no. 52 at 3.)

6

In the R&R, the Magistrate Judge thoroughly recited the parties’ respective

7

arguments and analyzed the factors under Turner v. Safley, 482 U.S. 78 (1987) to

8

determine whether deference should be afforded to prison officials and whether the

9

reasons offered for denying Plaintiff’s requests as alleged in counts I and II are

10

reasonably related to legitimate penological interests. (Dkt. no 48 at 6-13.) Plaintiff

11

argues that Defendants’ claim of security concern should not be given deference

12

because those security concerns existed before Defendants Baca and Stogner were

13

placed in their position. (Dkt. no. 52 at 2.) Defendants have offered undisputed evidence

14

of procedural changes made in 2013 and 2014 to allow inmates to participate in the

15

celebration of Ramadan and the Eid al-Fitr feast. (Dkt. no. 36-1 at 2-3.) They have also

16

offered evidence that accommodating Plaintiff’s request to congregate nightly in the

17

evening for group reading of the Quran and breaking of the evening fast for about 40

18

inmates would present security concerns because of reduction of staffing in the evening,

19

the chaplain’s normal work hours would have to be modified to supervise the religious

20

services of faith groups that do not have an approved outside sponsor but doing so

21

would affect the services of other faith groups, and diverting the staff needed to

22

overseeing the nightly gathering for thirty days would paralyze the remainder of the yard.

23

(Id. at 3-4.)

24

Having reviewed the R&R, the briefs relating to Defendants’ Motion and Plaintiff’s

25

objection, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s well reasoned analysis and

26

recommendations. The Court will therefore adopt the R&R.

27

///

28

///
3

1

V.

CONCLUSION
It

2

is

therefore

ordered,

adjudged

and

decreed

that

the

Report

and

3

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (dkt. no. 48) be accepted and

4

adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (dkt. no. 36)

5
6

is granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and close this

7
8
9

case.
DATED THIS 25th day of March 2016.

10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4