Pamplin v. Libby et al
ORDER - Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 33 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 28 ) is granted. Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with this order and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 10/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
Case 3:18-cv-00532-MMD-CLB Document 34 Filed 10/13/20 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
JOHN DAVID PAMPLIN,
Case No. 3:18-cv-00532-MMD-CLB
Pro se Plaintiff John David Pamplin brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of
United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 33), recommending that the
Court grant Defendant Justin Libby’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28) on
Plaintiff’s sole Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) claim.
Plaintiff had until September 30, 2020, to file an objection. (ECF No. 33 at 9.) To date, no
objection to the R&R has been filed. For this reason, and as explained below, the Court
adopts the R&R in its entirety.
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
Case 3:18-cv-00532-MMD-CLB Document 34 Filed 10/13/20 Page 2 of 2
clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”).
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is
satisfied Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. Here, Judge Baldwin recommends that the
Court grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment because the uncontested
evidence shows that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his available administrative remedies (ECF
No. 33 at 6-7), and that Defendant did not substantially burden Plaintiff’s religious
exercise as Plaintiff was not denied access to a Bible (Id. at 9). 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 Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
No. 33) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 28)
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter judgment in accordance with this
order and close this case.
DATED THIS 13th day of October 2020.
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?