Entsminger v. Aranas et al.
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)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
GREGORY WEST ENTSMINGER,
Case No. 3:16-cv-00555-MMD-WGC
ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
Plaintiff Gregory West Entsminger, who is in custody at the Northern Nevada
Correctional Center, filed this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
William G. Cobb (ECF No. 203) (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant Plaintiff’s
motion to set aside dismissal of dental assistant Jennifer (ECF No. 179). Plaintiff filed a
response in support of the R&R. (ECF No. 214.) As discussed further below, the Court
agrees with Judge Cobb’s reasoning and adopts the R&R in full.
The Court incorporates the facts outlined in the R&R (ECF No. 203 at 1-4) and does
not recite them here.
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party
timely objects to a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation, then the court is
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and
recommendation] to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party fails
to object, however, the court is not required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue
that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also
United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir. 2003) (disregarding the standard
of review employed by the district court when reviewing a report and recommendation to
which no objections were made); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983)
(providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation”).
Despite the lack of objection, this Court has engaged in a de novo review to
determine whether to adopt the R&R. Judge Cobb recommends that the Court grant
Plaintiff’s motion to set aside the dismissal of dental assistant Jennifer. (ECF No. 203 at
4.) Judge Cobb also recommends giving Plaintiff 30 days from the date of such order to
file a proof of service on Jennifer before dismissing her under Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 4(m). (Id.) Because Plaintiff agrees (ECF No. 214 at 1), 1 Defendants have not
responded, and the Court agrees with Judge Cobb, the Court will adopt the R&R (ECF
No. 203) in full.
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.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion to set aside dismissal of dental assistant
Jennifer (ECF No. 179) is granted. Plaintiff 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).
DATED THIS 6th day of July 2020.
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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).
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?