Entsminger v. Aranas et al.

Filing 217

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (ECF No. 203 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Plaintiff's Motion to Set Aside Dismissal of Dental Assistant Jennifer (ECF No. 179 ) is granted. P laintiff is given 30 days from the date of this order to file a proof of service on Defendant Jennifer, otherwise failure to do so will result in her dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m). Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

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

Plaintiff Gregory West Entsminger, who is in custody at the Northern Nevada

14

Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.

15

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

16

William G. Cobb (ECF No. 203) (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s

17

motion to set aside dismissal of dental assistant Jennifer (ECF No. 179). Plaintiff filed a

18

response in support of the R&R. (ECF No. 214.) As discussed further below, the Court

19

agrees with Judge Cobb’s reasoning and adopts the R&R in full.

20
21

The Court incorporates the facts outlined in the R&R (ECF No. 203 at 1-4) and does
not recite them here.

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26

recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails

27

to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue

28

that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also

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

Despite the lack of objection, this Court has engaged in a de novo review to

7

determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb recommends that the Court grant

8

Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal of dental assistant Jennifer. (ECF No. 203 at

9

4.) Judge Cobb also recommends giving Plaintiff 30 days from the date of such order to

10

file a proof of service on Jennifer before dismissing her under Federal Rule of Civil

11

Procedure 4(m). (Id.) Because Plaintiff agrees (ECF No. 214 at 1), 1 Defendants have not

12

responded, and the Court agrees with Judge Cobb, the Court will adopt the R&R (ECF

13

No. 203) in full.

14
15

It is therefore ordered that the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge
William G. Cobb (ECF Nos. 203) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

16

It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal of dental assistant

17

Jennifer (ECF No. 179) is granted. Plaintiff is given 30 days from the date of this order to

18

file a proof of service on Defendant Jennifer, otherwise failure to do so will result in her

19

dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(m).

20
21

DATED THIS 6th day of July 2020.

22
23
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28

1Plaintiff

also requests that the Court authorize USMS to locate the unserved
defendants at their new addresses and provide information on them. (ECF No. 214 at 12.) The Court denies such request as beyond the scope of a response to the R&R, and
directs Plaintiff to file a motion if he still wants to make that request. See LR IC 2-2(b)
(requiring that each type of requested relief be filed in a separate document).
2