Perez v. Aranas et al
ORDERED that Judge Carla L. Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 34 ) is accepted and adopted in full. It is further ordered that Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24 ) is granted. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/10/2022. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
Case 3:18-cv-00379-MMD-CLB Document 35 Filed 01/10/22 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Case No. 3:18-cv-00379-MMD-CLB
DR. ROMEO ARANAS, et al.,
Pro se Plaintiff Rogelio Perez submitted a civil rights complaint under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. (ECF No. 5.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 34 (“R&R”)), recommending that
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24) be granted, and that the Clerk
of Court enter judgment and close this case. Perez had until January 3, 2022, to file an
objection. To date, no objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as
explained below, the Court adopts the R&R and will close this case.
The 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
fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, 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,
1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and
recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the
findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original); 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.”).
Case 3:18-cv-00379-MMD-CLB Document 35 Filed 01/10/22 Page 2 of 2
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is
satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends
granting Defendants’ motion for summary judgment because Defendants have submitted
evidence establishing that they monitored Perez’s Hepatitis C condition during the
relevant time of the complaint. (ECF No. 34 at 7-9.) Moreover, Perez has failed to meet
his burden to show an issue of fact that Defendants were deliberately indifferent to his
condition since he has only shown he disagrees with Defendants’ course of treatment.
(Id. at 9-11.) The Court agrees with Judge Baldwin. Having reviewed the R&R and the
record in this case, the Court will adopt the R&R in full.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Carla L. Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation
(ECF No. 34) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 24)
The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case.
DATED THIS 10th Day of January 2022.
MIRANDA M. DU
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?