Watkins v. Hughes et al
Filing
46
ORDER - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 42 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Defendant's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22 ) is granted. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close this case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 2/22/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
4
5
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
6
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
7
***
8
JONATHAN WATKINS,
Plaintiff,
9
10
Case No. 3:15-cv-00186-MMD-VPC
v.
NATHAN HUGHES, et al.,
11
ORDER ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF
MAGISTRATE JUDGE
VALERIE P. COOKE
Defendants.
12
13
I.
SUMMARY
14
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States
15
Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) relating to Defendant Isidro Baca’s1
16
motion for summary judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 22.) Plaintiff filed a response (ECF
17
Nos. 27, 31) and Defendant filed a reply (ECF No. 30). Plaintiff filed an Objection to the
18
R&R (ECF No. 44) and Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s Objection (ECF No. 45).
19
After careful review and for the reasons discussed below, the Court adopts the R&R in
20
full.
21
II.
BACKGROUND
22
Plaintiff is an inmate currently housed at Northern Nevada Correctional Center
23
(“NNCC”). The Court ultimately permitted Plaintiff to proceed with Count I for violation of
24
his First Amendment rights with respect to outgoing mail. (ECF No. 6.) Plaintiff alleges
25
that Defendant violated his First Amendment rights by removing his outgoing legal mail
26
from the mailroom to the law library for logging and/or reading. (ECF No. 4 at 4.) As a
27
28
Court granted Plaintiff’s motion for leave to voluntarily dismiss Defendants
Nathan Hughes and Sheryl Foster. (ECF No. 29.)
1The
1
result of this action, Plaintiff claims that Defendant’s interference with his outgoing legal
2
mail caused a state court to dismiss plaintiff’s timely opposition because it was filed one
3
day late. (Id. at 5.) The relevant background, which the Court adopts, is set out in the
4
R&R. (See ECF No. 42 at 1-2.)
5
III.
LEGAL STANDARD
6
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
7
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
8
timely objects to the magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
9
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
10
recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. In light of Plaintiff’s objections, the
11
Court has engaged in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate Judge
12
Cooke’s recommendations. Where a party fails to object, however, the court is not
13
required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an
14
objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Indeed, the Ninth Circuit has
15
recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s report and
16
recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v. Reyna-
17
Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard of review employed by
18
the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to which no objections
19
were made); see also Schmidt v. Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d 1219, 1226 (D. Ariz. 2003)
20
(reading the Ninth Circuit’s decision in Reyna-Tapia as adopting the view that district
21
courts are not required to review any issue that is not the subject of an objection). Thus,
22
if there is no objection to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, then the court may
23
accept the recommendation without review. See, e.g., Johnstone, 263 F. Supp. 2d at
24
1226 (accepting, without review, a magistrate judge’s recommendation to which no
25
objection was filed).
26
IV.
DISCUSSION
27
While prisoners have a constitutional right to send and receive mail, prison
28
administrators are given discretion to govern the order and security of the prison. (See
2
1
ECF No. 42 at 5 (citing Witherow v. Paff, 52 F.3d 264, 265 (9th Cir. 1995) (per curiam)
2
and Thornburgh v. Abbott, 490 U.S. 401, 407-08 (1989)).) Prison officials are not
3
allowed to review a prisoner’s legal documents before sending them to court, but prison
4
officials may identify mail from a prisoner’s attorney and open such mail in front of the
5
prisoner for visual inspection. (See ECF No. 5 (citing Ex Parte Hull, 312 U.S. 546, 549
6
(1941) and Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 576-77 (1974)).)
7
Plaintiff alleges that Nevada Department of Corrections’ (“NDOC”) officials have
8
read and/or interfered with his outgoing legal mail in violation of his First Amendment
9
rights. (ECF No. 4 at 4-6.) However, Plaintiff presented no evidence in response to
10
Defendant’s Motion or in his Objection to the R&R to demonstrate even a possibility that
11
NDOC officials read or interfered with his outgoing legal mail. Based on the evidence
12
available to the Court and as found by the Magistrate Judge in the R&R, prison
13
administrators appear to log legal mail before it is sent out (and not read it). (See ECF
14
No. 42 at 5.) Moreover, in Defendant’s reply in support of his Motion, Defendant points
15
out that Plaintiff placed his outgoing legal mail for pickup on a Friday (no time is
16
indicated in the record). (ECF No. 30 at 4.) NDOC Administrative Regulation (“AR”) 722
17
states that mail can be held for up to twenty-four hours for processing before arriving at
18
the post office (see ECF No. 22 at 6), and AR 750 states that mail pickup and delivery
19
does not occur on weekends or holidays (see AR 750). Thus, it is plausible that Plaintiff’s
20
legal document was not picked up by NDOC staff for logging until Monday morning at
21
10:30am, after which it was returned to the mail room at 3:30pm and sent out to the post
22
office the subsequent day by 8:00 am.
23
Plaintiff also appears to rely on a Ninth Circuit case, Douglas v. Noelle, 567 F.3d
24
1102 (9th Cir. 2009), to assert that service is complete the “instant the documents are
25
placed into the hands of the United States Post Office or Post Office Box.” (ECF No. 44
26
at 5.) While this may be true when documents are filed a day late in federal court, it does
27
not apply to the same situation in state court, where specific procedural rules of the state
28
govern determination of service. Moreover, this Court dismissed Plaintiff’s access to the
3
1
courts claim in the Screening Order. (See ECF No. 6.) Thus, Plaintiff’s reliance on
2
Douglas is misplaced.
The Court therefore accepts the reasoning of the Magistrate Judge and adopts
3
4
the R&R.
5
V.
6
CONCLUSION
It
is
therefore
ordered,
adjudged
and
decreed
that
the
Report
and
7
Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (ECF No. 42) is accepted and
8
adopted in full.
9
10
11
12
13
It is ordered that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 22) is
granted.
The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this Order and close
this case.
DATED THIS 22nd day of February 2017.
14
15
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4
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?