Truman v. Moore et al
Filing
73
ORDER - Judge Baldwin's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 72 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60 ) is granted in part and denied in part as detailed herein. The Court strikes Truman 039;s unauthorized surreply (ECF No. 69 ). The Court finds it appropriate to refer this case for a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin. If this case does not settle at the settlement conference, the Joint Pretrial Order is due within 30 days of the settlement conference being held. Signed by Judge Miranda M. Du on 1/28/2025. (For Distribution by law library.)(Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
1
2
3
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
4
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
5
***
6
CURTIS TRUMAN,
Case No. 3:22-cv-00548-MMD-CLB
7
8
9
10
Plaintiff,
ORDER
v.
THURISTON MOORE, et al.,
Defendants.
11
Pro se Plaintiff Curtis Truman, who is incarcerated in the custody of the Nevada
12
Department of Corrections (“NDOC”), sued NDOC employees and officials for excessive
13
force and violation of his due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 5.) Before
14
the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge
15
Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 72), recommending that the Court grant Defendants’ motion for
16
summary judgment (ECF No. 60) in part, and deny it in part, along with striking Truman’s
17
unauthorized surreply. To date, no objections to the R&R have been filed. Because there
18
is no objection, and as further explained below, the Court will adopt the R&R.
19
Because there is no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is
20
satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328
21
F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and
22
recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the
23
findings and recommendations.” (emphasis in original)). After summarizing the evidence
24
before her, Judge Baldwin first recommends the Court deny Defendants’ motion for
25
summary judgment as to Truman’s excessive force claim because the pertinent
26
allegations in his verified complaint create a genuine dispute of material fact. (ECF No.
27
72 at 9.) However, Judge Baldwin recommends the Court grant summary judgment to
28
Defendants as to Truman’s due process claim because the evidence before her shows
1
Truman received the process he was due. (Id. at 10-11.) Judge Baldwin finally
2
recommends striking Truman’s unauthorized surreply because he did not first obtain
3
leave of Court. (Id. at 11.) Having reviewed the R&R, Judge Baldwin did not clearly err.
4
It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF
5
No. 72) is accepted and adopted in full.
6
It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 60)
7
is granted in part and denied in part. It is more specifically granted as to Truman’s
8
Fourteenth Amendment due process claim and denied as to Truman’s Eighth Amendment
9
excessive force claim. Truman is accordingly proceeding on only his Eighth Amendment
10
excessive force claim.
11
12
It is further ordered that the Court strikes Truman’s unauthorized surreply (ECF
No. 69).
13
It is further ordered that the Court finds it appropriate to refer this case for a
14
settlement conference under LR 16-5 before United States Magistrate Judge Carla
15
Baldwin.
16
17
18
It is further ordered that, if this case does not settle at the settlement conference,
the Joint Pretrial Order is due within 30 days of the settlement conference being held.
DATED THIS 28th Day of January 2025.
19
20
21
22
MIRANDA M. DU
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
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?