Craig Titus v. Romeo Aranas, et al

Filing 45

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 42 ) is accepted and adopted in its entirety. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29 ) is granted. Plaintiff's Motion for New and Updated Testing (ECF No. 37 ) is denied as moot. Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 7/23/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

Case 3:18-cv-00146-MMD-CLB Document 45 Filed 07/23/20 Page 1 of 3
1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

5

***

6

CRAIG TITUS,

Case No. 3:18-cv-00146-MMD-CLB
Plaintiff,

7

ORDER

v.
8
9

JAMES DZURENDA, et al.,
Defendants.

10
11
12

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

13

Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 42) (“R&R”), recommending that the Court grant

14

Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (“Motion”) (ECF No. 29). Plaintiff filed an

15

objection to the R&R (“Objection”). 1 (ECF No. 43.) As discussed further below, the Court

16

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

17
18

The Court adopts the facts outlined in the R&R (ECF No. 42 at 1-4) and does not
recite them here.

19

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

20

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

21

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

22

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

23

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

24

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

25

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

26
27
28

1The

Court has also reviewed Defendants’ response (ECF No. 44).

Case 3:18-cv-00146-MMD-CLB Document 45 Filed 07/23/20 Page 2 of 3
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. Judge Baldwin found that Defendants are

8

entitled to summary judgment because Plaintiff cannot establish: (1) deliberate

9

indifference for his Eighth Amendment claim; or that (2) he is similarly situated to other

10

inmates necessary to sustain his Fourteenth Amendment Equal Protection claim. (ECF

11

No. 42 at 8-11.)

12

Plaintiff objects that Defendants know Plaintiff needs testosterone therapy

13

treatment (“TRT”), but Plaintiff offers no supporting evidence other than pointing to his

14

formal communications and grievances to Defendants. (ECF No. 43 at 4-6, 8.) To the

15

contrary, Judge Baldwin found that the undisputed results of the three tests and Dr.

16

Arana’s declaration indicate that Plaintiff’s testosterone levels are within the normal range

17

for a male of his age and, therefore, he does not need TRT. (ECF No. 42 at 8-9.) See

18

Toguchi v. Chung, 391 F.3d 1051, 1058 (holding that prison officials are not deliberately

19

indifferent simply because they prescribe a treatment that an inmate disagrees with). To

20

the extent Plaintiff points to Dr. Adamson’s statements that Plaintiff should receive TRT

21

(ECF No. 42 at 6), Judge Baldwin correctly found that disagreement between medical

22

professionals is not enough to establish deliberate indifference (ECF No. 43 at 9.) See

23

Jackson v. McIntosh, 90 F.3d 330, 332 (9th Cir. 1996). Plaintiff also objects that he is

24

being treated differently from transgender inmates who are receiving TRT. (ECF No. 43 at

25

5, 9.) But as Judge Baldwin pointed out, however, Plaintiff’s testosterone level is at least

26

thirty times higher than transgender inmate Nall, whom Plaintiff attempts to compare

27

himself to. (ECF No. 42 at 10-11.)

28
2

Case 3:18-cv-00146-MMD-CLB Document 45 Filed 07/23/20 Page 3 of 3
1

Having reviewed briefs relating to the Motion and Plaintiff’s Objection, the Court

2

agrees with Judge Baldwin and will overrule Plaintiff’s Objection and adopt the R&R in

3

full. 2

4

III.

CONCLUSION

5

The Court notes that Plaintiff made several arguments and cited to several cases

6

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

7

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

8

the Court.

9

It is therefore ordered, adjudged and decreed that the Report and Recommendation

10

of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 42) is accepted and adopted in its entirety.

11

It is ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29) is

12
13
14
15
16

granted.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff’s motion for new and updated testing (ECF No. 37)
is denied as moot.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in accordance with this
order and close this case.

17
18

DATED THIS 23rd day of July 2020.

19
20
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2Plaintiff’s

Objection also discusses qualified immunity (ECF No. 43 at 7), but Judge
Baldwin declined to address the issue because found that there was no Eighth or
Fourteenth Amendment violation to begin with (ECF No. 42 at 11 n.4). As such, the Court
declines to address qualified immunity here.
3