Entsminger v. Aranas et al.
Filing
135
ORDER that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 120 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety; Plaintiff's emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 118 ) is denied. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/27/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LW)
1
2
3
4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
5
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
6
***
7
GREGORY WEST ENTSMINGER,
Plaintiff,
8
Case No. 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC
ORDER
v.
9
10
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
Defendants.
11
12
13
I.
SUMMARY
14
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
15
Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 120) (“R&R”), recommending denial of Plaintiff’s
16
emergency motion for temporary restraining order (the “Motion”) (ECF No. 118). Plaintiff
17
filed an objection to the R&R (“Objection”). 1 (ECF No. 122.) As discussed further below,
18
the Court agrees with Judge Cobb’s reasoning and adopts the R&R in full.
19
II.
DISCUSSION
20
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
21
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
22
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
23
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
24
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
25
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
26
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also
27
28
1The
Court has also reviewed Defendants’ response (ECF No. 134).
1
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
2
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
3
which no objections were made); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983)
4
(providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
5
the record in order to accept the recommendation”).
6
In light of Plaintiff’s objection to the R&R, this Court has engaged in a de novo
7
review to determine whether to adopt the R&R. Plaintiff’s Motion requests an order that
8
maintains the status quo with respect to his housing, his legal and personal property, his
9
classification status, and his job assignment. (ECF No. 118 at 1.) Judge Cobb found that
10
the requested relief is ancillary to the claims in Plaintiff’s Complaint (ECF No. 120 at 2),
11
which the Court agrees. Accordingly, Judge Cobb recommended denying the Motion
12
because Plaintiff has not demonstrated the requisite “nexus between claims raised in the
13
motion and the claims set forth in the underlying complaint itself.” (ECF No. 120 at 3 (citing
14
to Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen’s Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015).)
15
Plaintiff objects that there is sufficient nexus because the Motion seeks “to prevent ongoing
16
retaliation for the First Amendment activities.” (ECF No. 122 at 4.) But Plaintiff’s argument
17
is too broad to sufficiently demonstrate the requisite nexus to (1) his First Amendment
18
claim that prison officials opened his legal mail, or (2) his retaliation claim that certain
19
defendants refused to provide Plaintiff dental treatment because he filed a grievance. (See
20
ECF No. 21 at 20.) Moreover, the Court finds that Plaintiff provides no evidence of such
21
nexus. Plaintiff also attempts to distinguish his case from Pacific Radiation Oncology, LLC
22
v. Queen’s Medical Center, 810 F.3d 631 (9th Cir. 2015) (ECF No. 122 at 4), but the Ninth
23
Circuit has recently applied that legal standard to the context of a prisoner’s civil rights
24
action. See Friedman v. Woods, 787 F. App'x 966 (9th Cir. 2019) (affirming denial of a
25
preliminary injunction where prisoner failed to establish a relationship between the
26
///
27
///
28
///
2
1
requested injunctive relief and the underlying retaliation claims in the complaint). 2
2
Accordingly, the Court will deny the Motion.
3
III.
CONCLUSION
4
The Court notes that Plaintiff made several arguments and cited to several cases
5
not discussed above. The Court has reviewed these arguments and cases and determines
6
that they do not warrant discussion as they do not affect the outcome of the Motion before
7
the Court.
8
It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation
9
of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 120) is accepted and adopted in its
10
11
12
entirety.
It is ordered that Plaintiff’s emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF
No. 118) is denied.
13
14
DATED THIS 27th day of January 2020.
15
16
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2Pursuant
to Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3, Friedman, 787 F. App'x 966 is not precedent,
but may be cited by this Court. See FRAP 32.1 The Court accordingly cites Friedman not
for its precedential value, but because the Court finds the Ninth Circuit’s reasoning on a
similar point of law persuasive.
3
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?