Gates v. Legrand et al

Filing 78

ORDER - The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 77 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, and the joinder thereto, (ECF Nos. 70 , 73 ) are granted.Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/16/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Case 3:16-cv-00321-MMD-CLB Document 78 Filed 04/16/20 Page 1 of 4
1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

RICHARD R. GATES,

Case No. 3:16-cv-00321-MMD-CBC
-CLB
Plaintiff,

7
v.

ORDER

8
R. LEGRAND, et al.,
9
Defendants.

10
11

I.

SUMMARY

12

Plaintiff Richard R. Gates alleges violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment

13

rights because amber fragrant resin granular incense (“Incense”) was taken from him after

14

he was permitted to order it while in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections

15

(“NDOC”). Plaintiff alleges he needs the Incense to practice his Wiccan faith. Before the

16

Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of Magistrate

17

Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 77) relating to Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF

18

Nos. 70), and Defendant Olivas’ joinder thereto (ECF No. 73).1 Plaintiff did not file an

19

objection to the R&R, though the time for doing so has elapsed. For this reason, and as

20

further explained below, the Court will accept and adopt the R&R, and grant both

21

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and Defendant Olivas’ joinder thereto.

22

II.

BACKGROUND

23

The Court refers to its prior order on Defendants’ first round of motions for summary

24

judgment for the background facts of this case, and does not restate those facts here.

25

(ECF No. 48 at 2-5.)

26

///

27
28

1Plaintiff

filed a response (ECF No. 72), and Defendants filed a reply (ECF No. 74).

Case 3:16-cv-00321-MMD-CLB Document 78 Filed 04/16/20 Page 2 of 4
1

III.

LEGAL STANDARDS
Review of the Magistrate Judge’s Recommendations

2

A.

3

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

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v.

10

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate

11

judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file

12

objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P.

13

72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that

14

there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”).

15

B.

Summary Judgment Standard

16

“The purpose of summary judgment is to avoid unnecessary trials when there is no

17

dispute as to the facts before the court.” Nw. Motorcycle Ass’n v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 18

18

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

19

the discovery and disclosure materials on file, and any affidavits “show there is no genuine

20

issue as to any material fact and that the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of

21

law.” Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 330 (1986). An issue is “genuine” if there is

22

a sufficient evidentiary basis on which a reasonable fact-finder could find for the

23

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

24

the governing law. See Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248-49 (1986).

25

Where reasonable minds could differ on the material facts at issue, however, summary

26

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

27

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

28

parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.’” Aydin Corp. v. Loral Corp., 718 F.2d 897,
2

Case 3:16-cv-00321-MMD-CLB Document 78 Filed 04/16/20 Page 3 of 4
1

902 (9th Cir. 1983) (quoting First Nat’l Bank v. Cities Serv. Co., 391 U.S. 253, 288-89

2

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

3

inferences in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Kaiser Cement Corp.

4

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

5

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

6

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

7

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

8

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

9

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

10

but must produce specific evidence, through affidavits or admissible discovery material, to

11

show that the dispute exists,” Bhan v. NME Hosps., Inc., 929 F.2d 1404, 1409 (9th Cir.

12

1991), and “must do more than simply show that there is some metaphysical doubt as to

13

the material facts.” Orr v. Bank of Am., 285 F.3d 764, 783 (9th Cir. 2002) (quoting

14

Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 586 (1986)). “The mere

15

existence of a scintilla of evidence in support of the plaintiff’s position will be insufficient.”

16

Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252.

17

IV.

DISCUSSION

18

As Plaintiff has failed to object to Judge Baldwin’s Recommendation to grant

19

summary judgment to Defendants, the Court is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not commit

20

clear error on the face of the R&R. Judge Baldwin recommends that summary judgement

21

be granted to Defendants because they did not personally participate in Plaintiff’s alleged

22

constitutional violations—they merely responded to grievances. (ECF No. 77 at 7-9.)

23

Moreover, Judge Baldwin recommends that summary judgment be granted to Defendants

24

on the alternative basis that they are entitled to qualified immunity. (Id. at 9-11.) Having

25

reviewed the R&R and the underlying briefing, the Court agrees with Judge Baldwin.

26

V.

CONCLUSION

27

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

28

not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines
3

Case 3:16-cv-00321-MMD-CLB Document 78 Filed 04/16/20 Page 4 of 4
1

that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the motions before

2

the Court.

3
4
5
6

It is therefore ordered that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 77) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and the joinder
thereto, (ECF Nos. 70, 73) are granted.

7

The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case.

8

DATED THIS 16th day of April 2020.

9
10
11

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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