Silva v. Stogner et al

Filing 101

ORDERED that Judge Denney's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 95 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Accordingly, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 83 ) is granted in part and denied in part as follows:. (1) Defe ndants are GRANTED summary judgement as to Plaintiff's RLUIPA claims;. (2) Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment insofar as Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for his First Amendment claim;. (3) Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment as to Plaintiff's claim that his First Amendment rights were violated by the denial of requests to receive donated religious items;. (4) Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment insofar as Plaintiff alleges that his First Amendment rights w ere violated because he was denied the following items: prayer shawl, undergarment, leather prayer boxes, candlesticks, spice holder, and prayer rugs; and. (5) Defendants are DENIED summary judgment as to Plaintiff's First Amendment claim that he was denied a religious robe and the ability to observe the holy day of Purim over a two-day period. This claim will proceed against Defendants Stogner, Walsh, and Calderon. Signed by District Judge Anne R. Traum on 11/26/2024. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

2

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

3
4

Case No.: 3:20-cv-00027-ART-CSD

RONALD SILVA,

5

Order Adopting Report &
Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge

Plaintiff,

6

v.

7

JAMES STOGNER, et al.,

8

Defendants.

9
10

Plaintiff Ronald Silva brings this action against Defendants James Stogner,

11

Lisa Walsh, and Julio Calderon for claims related to events that took place when

12

Silva was incarcerated at the Northern Nevada Correctional Center (NNCC). Silva

13

alleges that Defendants denied him various religious items and hindered his

14

ability to practice his faith. The Court previously screened Silva’s Second

15

Amended Complaint (ECF No. 35) and allowed his First Amendment and RLUIPA

16

claims to proceed (ECF No. 43, 60.) Defendants filed a motion for summary

17

judgment, arguing that Silva failed to exhaust administrative remedies on certain

18

claims; that Silva’s injunctive and RLUIPA claims are moot because Silva is no

19

longer incarcerated; that Defendant Walsh did not personally participate in the

20

alleged violations; and that all Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity.

21

(ECF No. 83.) U.S. Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney issued a report and

22

recommendation (R&R) recommending that the motion be granted in part and

23

denied in part. Neither party has objected to the R&R. For the following reasons,

24

the Court adopts Judge Denney’s R&R in full.

25

I.

26

Silva is a practicing Messianic Jew who was incarcerated at NNCC until

27

October 2023. (ECF Nos. 35 at 3; 83 at 12.) Silva claims that Defendants

BACKGROUND

28

1

1

repeatedly denied his requests for the following religious items: prayer shawl,

2

undergarment, leather prayer boxes, sabbath and Chanukah candlesticks, spice

3

holder, holy days robe, and prayer rugs. (ECF No. 35 at 5.) Plaintiff claims that

4

Defendants also denied his requests to receive various religious items by

5

donation. (Id. at 6.) Finally, Plaintiff claims that Defendants denied him a two-

6

day observance of the holy day of Purim. (Id.) The Court found that Plaintiff stated

7

colorable claims under the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA

8

against Defendants Stogner, Walsh, and Calderon (the latter in his official

9

capacity only). (ECF Nos. 43; 60.)

10

II.

DISCUSSION

11

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

12

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

13

a party fails to object to a magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court is not

14

required to conduct “any review at all . . . of any issue that is not the subject of

15

an objection.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985); see also United States v.

16

Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the

17

magistrate judges’ findings and recommendations is required if, but only if, one

18

or both parties file objections to the findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis

19

in original); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72, Advisory Committee Notes (1983) (providing that

20

the Court “need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the

21

record in order to accept the recommendation.”).

22

Because there is no objection to this R&R, the Court need not conduct de

23

novo review, and is satisfied Judge Denney did not clearly err. Judge Denney

24

recommends first that the Court grant Defendants summary judgment on

25

Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims and to the extent that Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief for

26

his First Amendment claim. (ECF No. 95 at 5-6.) The Court agrees with Judge

27

Denney’s finding that these claims are moot because Plaintiff has been released

28

from custody and has not alleged any continuing effects of the violations. (Id.)

2

1

Judge Denney next recommends that the Court deny Walsh summary

2

judgment on Defendants’ personal participation argument. (Id. at 6.) The Court

3

agrees that Defendants have failed to meet their burden of showing that Walsh,

4

who had authority to supervise the chaplain in day-to-day religious services, did

5

not personally participate in the alleged deprivations of Plaintiff’s rights. (Id.)

6

Third, Judge Denney recommends that the Court grant Defendants

7

summary judgment on the portion of Plaintiff’s First Amendment complaint

8

which alleges that his rights were violated due to the denial of requests to receive

9

donated religious items. (Id. at 8; see ECF No. 35 at 6.) The Court agrees with

10

Judge Denney’s finding that Plaintiff did not file a grievance concerning the denial

11

of requests to receive religious items by donation and therefore failed to exhaust

12

administrative remedies on this claim. (ECF No. 95 at 8; see ECF No. 83-6.)

13

Finally, Judge Denney recommends that the Court deny Defendants

14

summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. (ECF No. 95 at 9-13.) In this

15

analysis, Judge Denney recommends that the Court grant Defendants summary

16

judgment insofar as Plaintiff contends that his First Amendment rights were

17

violated due to the alleged denial of several religious items—a prayer shawl,

18

undergarment, leather prayer boxes, candlesticks, spice holder, and prayer

19

rugs—because Defendants have presented evidence showing that Plaintiff’s

20

requests for these items were either approved or that these items were available

21

in the chapel storage room. (Id. at 11.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney’s

22

finding that Defendants have not met their burden of demonstrating that they

23

are entitled to qualified immunity for their denial of Plaintiff’s request for a

24

religious robe and Plaintiff’s request to observe Purim over a two-day period, but

25

have demonstrated that they are entitled to summary judgment regarding the

26

requests for other items. (Id.)

27
28

Having reviewed the R&R, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and
the record in this case, the Court adopts the R&R in full.

3

1

III.

2

It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney’s Report and Recommendation

3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

CONCLUSION

(ECF No. 95) is accepted and adopted in full.
Accordingly, Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 83) is
granted in part and denied in part as follows:
(1) Defendants are GRANTED summary judgement as to Plaintiff’s
RLUIPA claims;
(2) Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment insofar as Plaintiff
seeks injunctive relief for his First Amendment claim;
(3) Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s claim

11

that his First Amendment rights were violated by the denial of

12

requests to receive donated religious items;

13

(4) Defendants are GRANTED summary judgment insofar as Plaintiff

14

alleges that his First Amendment rights were violated because he was

15

denied the following items: prayer shawl, undergarment, leather prayer

16

boxes, candlesticks, spice holder, and prayer rugs; and

17

(5) Defendants are DENIED summary judgment as to Plaintiff’s First

18

Amendment claim that he was denied a religious robe and the ability

19

to observe the holy day of Purim over a two-day period. This claim will

20

proceed against Defendants Stogner, Walsh, and Calderon.

21
22

DATED: November 26, 2024

23
24

___________________________________

25

ANNE R. TRAUM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28

4