White v. Baca et al

Filing 100

ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb ECF No. 99 is accepted and adopted; Defendants' motion for summary judgment ECF No. 71 is granted; Clerk directed to enter judgment and close case. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 9/6/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KW)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

HOWARD LEE WHITE,

Case No. 3:15-cv-00573-MMD-WGC
Plaintiff,

10
v.
11
ISIDRO BACA, et al.,

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

12
Defendants.
13
14

I.

SUMMARY

15

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

16

Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 99) (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant

17

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (“Defendants’ Motion”) (ECF No. 71) relating

18

to Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction (“Plaintiff’s Motion”) (ECF No. 23).

19

Plaintiff had until September 4, 2018, to object to the R&R. (ECF No. 99.) To date, no

20

objection to the R&R has been filed. The Court has reviewed the R&R and the briefs

21

relating to Defendants’ Motion (ECF Nos. 71, 73, 83, 86, 87, 91). The Court agrees with

22

the R&R and will grant Defendants’ Motion.

23

II.

RELEVANT BACKGROUND

24

Plaintiff Howard Lee White is an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department

25

of Corrections housed at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (“NNCC”) during the

26

events that give rise to this action. (ECF No. 49 at 1.) Plaintiff alleges that he was

27

diagnosed with diabetes in 2003 and was ordered a 2000-calorie medical diet with an

28

“H.S. snack” by his medical provider. (Id. at 5.) Plaintiff asserts that Defendants failed to

1

provide him with meals that satisfied his dietary requirements. (Id.) The Court ultimately

2

permitted Plaintiff to proceed with two claims in his Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”):

3

(1) (Count I) deliberate indifference to serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth

4

Amendment; and (2) (Count II) negligent breach of duty in violation of NRS § 209.381.

5

(ECF No. 10 at 7; ECF No. 48 at 5.)

6

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS

7

A.

Summary Judgment

8

“The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is

9

no dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric.,

10

18 F.3d 1468, 1471 (9th Cir. 1994). Summary judgment is appropriate when the

11

pleadings, the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there

12

is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as

13

a matter of law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is

14

“genuine” if there is a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could

15

find for the nonmoving party and a dispute is “material” if it could affect the outcome of

16

the suit under the governing law. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49

17

(1986). Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however,

18

summary judgment is not appropriate. See id. at 250-51. “The amount of evidence

19

necessary to raise a genuine issue of material fact is enough ‘to require a jury or judge to

20

resolve the parties' differing versions of the truth at trial.’” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718

21

F.2d 897, 902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253,

22

288-89 (1968)). In evaluating a summary judgment motion, a court views all facts and

23

draws all inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. Kaiser Cement

24

Corp. v. Fishbach & Moore, Inc., 793 F.2d 1100, 1103 (9th Cir. 1986).

25

The moving party bears the burden of showing that there are no genuine issues

26

of material fact. Zoslaw v. MCA Distrib. Corp., 693 F.2d 870, 883 (9th Cir. 1982). Once

27

the moving party satisfies Rule 56’s requirements, the burden shifts to the party resisting

28

the motion to “set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial.”
2

1

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 256. The nonmoving party “may not rely on denials in the

2

pleadings but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery

3

material, to show that the dispute exists,” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404,

4

1409 (9th Cir. 1991), and “must do more than simply show that there is some

5

metaphysical doubt as to the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th

6

Cir. 2002) (quoting Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586

7

(1986)). “The mere existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position

8

will be insufficient.” Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.
B.

9

Review of Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

10

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

11

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

12

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

13

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

14

recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. Where a party fails to object, however,

15

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

16

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

17

Circuit has recognized that a district court is not required to review a magistrate judge’s

18

report and recommendation where no objections have been filed. See United States v.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

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

27

which no objection was filed).

28

///
3

1

IV.

DISCUSSION

2

As noted, Plaintiff has failed to object to the R&R. Nevertheless, this Court finds it

3

appropriate to engage in a de novo review to determine whether to adopt Magistrate

4

Judge Cobb’s recommendations.

5

Judge Cobb recommends granting granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s

6

Eighth Amendment claim because Plaintiff fails to raise a genuine issue of material fact

7

that Defendants were deliberately indifference to his nutritional needs. (ECF No. 99 at 6-

8

12.) Defendants presented undisputed evidence that NNCC’s culinary department

9

maintains a list of inmates with prescribed medical diets and implements the

10

dietitian-approved menus that follow a four-week cycle for breakfast, lunch, and dinner.

11

(ECF No. 71-6 at 3; ECF No. 71-12 at 3; ECF No. 71-9 at 3.) Moreover, Defendant

12

Jayson Brumfield, a Food Service Manager at NNCC, attested that Plaintiff is on the list

13

to receive the prescribed medical diet, and his staff provide inmates on the list, including

14

Plaintiff, with three meals a day within the licensed dietitian-approved menus for

15

Plaintiff’s prescribed medical diet. (ECF No. 71-9 at 3-4.) Brumfield explained that his

16

department follows specific dietitian-approved instructions for each meal in the four-week

17

cycle, as well as any modifications to that meal depending on the particular medical diet

18

prescribed. (Id. at 3.) He provided as an example of a modification that an inmate with a

19

lower calorie diet may receive a smaller portion of a piece of cake to accommodate the

20

inmate’s medical diet. (Id.) Based on the same undisputed evidence, Judge Cobb also

21

recommends granting summary judgment on Plaintiff’s negligence claim. (ECF No. 99 at

22

13.)

23

recommendations.

24

V.

Having

reviewed

the

records,

the

Court

agrees

with

Judge

Cobb’s

CONCLUSION

25

The Court notes that the parties made several arguments and cited to several

26

cases not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and

27

determines that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of

28

Defendants’ Motion.
4

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
William G. Cobb (ECF No. 99) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 71)
is granted.
The Clerk is instructed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and close
this case.
DATED THIS 6th day of September 2018.

8
9
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
5