Espinosa v. Filson et al

Filing 105

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 103 ) is accepted and adopted in full.Defendants' Motion to Dismiss Count V of the First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 82 ) is granted as provided herein. Count V is dismissed with regard to all relevant Defendants, including Timothy Filson. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/24/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)

1
2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
3
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
4
***
5
6

BENJAMIN W. ESPINOSA,

7

Case No. 3:18-cv-00298-MMD-CLB
Plaintiff

ORDER

v.
8
FILSON, et al.,
9
Defendants.
10
11
12

Plaintiff Benjamin W. Espinosa, who is a person in the custody of the Nevada

13

Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), brings this civil rights case under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of Magistrate Judge Carla

15

L. Baldwin, recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V 1

16

of Espinosa’s First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) (“Motion”) (ECF Nos. 47, 82). (ECF No.

17

103.) Any objection to the R&R was due on March 18, 2020 (id.), but to date none has

18

been filed. The Court will accept the R&R in full.

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

fails to object to a magistrate’s recommendation, the Court is not required to conduct “any

22

review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474

23

U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114 (9th Cir.

24

2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is

25

required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the findings and

26

recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes

27
28

1“Defendants”

collectively refers to those who have filed the Motion: Michelle Clay,
Gloria Carpenter, James Dzurenda, Michele Ewing, Scott Mattinson, William Reubart,
Gail Holmes and Romeo Aranas. (ECF No. 82 at 1.) However, the Court notes that only
those against whom Count V is asserted, see infra, has standing as to the count.

1

(1983) (providing that the court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the

2

face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”).

3
4

Despite the lack of an objection, the Court conducts de novo review to determine
whether to accept the R&R and ultimately finds the R&R should be accepted. 2

5

As relevant here, upon screening the Court permitted the NRS Chapter 433 claims

6

Espinosa asserted in Count V to proceed against Defendants Dzurenda, Aranas, and

7

Filson. 3 (ECF No. 46 at 13, 18.) The other claims asserted in Count V were dismissed.

8

(Id.) In the R&R, Judge Baldwin recommends granting the Motion, finding that Chapter

9

433 is inapplicable to Espinosa and NDOC (and by extension Ely State Prison—which is

10

the pertinent institution in this matter). To be clear, all relevant Defendants at all pertinent

11

times were employed by NDOC. Judge Baldwin determined that dismissal is proper

12

specifically because: NDOC is not a public or private institution or facility to which NRS

13

Chapter 433 applies; the chapter does not provide for a private cause of action; and

14

because Espinosa is not a “consumer” entitled to protection under the chapter. (ECF No.

15

103 at 5–8.) After reviewing the applicable provisions (see, e.g., NRS §§ 433.014,

16

433.024,

17

433.554(5)(b)), the Court finds in accordance with Judge Baldwin and will therefore

18

accept the R&R in full. 4

433.047,

433.064,

433.084,

433.144,

433.233,

433.534,

433.554,

19

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

20

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 103) is accepted and

21

adopted in full.

22

///

23

///

24
25
26
27
28

2The

Court also accepts and adopts the relevant factual and procedural
background as set forth in the R&R. (See ECF No. 103 at 1–4.)
3It

appears that Filson has not been served in this action. (See ECF Nos. 72, 79.)

4As

also noted in the R&R, Espinosa did not file points and authority responsive to
the Motion. (ECF No. 103 at 1, 4; see also generally docket.) Thus, in addition to Judge
Baldwin’s findings in the R&R, the Court finds that dismissal of Count V is appropriate
under Local Rule 7.2. See LR 7-2(d) (“The failure of an opposing party to file points and
authorities in response to any motion, except a motion under Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 or a
motion for attorney[s’] fees, constitutes a consent to the granting of the motion.”).
2

1

It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Count V of the FAC (ECF

2

No. 82) is granted as provided herein. Count V is dismissed with regard to all relevant

3

Defendants, including Timothy Filson who has not been served in this matter and is

4

therefore not a party to the motion to dismiss.

5

DATED THIS 24th day of March 2020.

6
7
8

MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3