Espinosa v. Filson

[2] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT [3] DISTRICT OF NEVADA [4] * * * [5] 6 BENJAMIN W. ESPINOSA, Case No. 3:18-cv-00298-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff ORDER v. [8] FILSON, et al., [9] Defendants. [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] 1“Defendants” collectively refers to those who have filed the Motion: Michelle Clay, 28 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 2 face of the record in order to accept the recommendation”). 3 Despite the lack of an objection, the Court conducts de novo review to determine 4 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, 433.047, 433.064, 433.084, 433.144, 433.233, 433.534, 433.554, 17 433.554(5)(b)), the Court finds in accordance with Judge Baldwin and will therefore 18 accept the R&R in full.4 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 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.) [25] 3It appears that Filson has not been served in this action. (See ECF Nos. 72, 79.) [26] 4As also noted in the R&R, Espinosa did not file points and authority responsive to 27 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 28 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 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 24" day of March 2020. 6 _~ A GX 8 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE