Opinion
3:20-cv-00049-ART-CLB
08-31-2023
FRANK HEARRING, Plaintiff, v. RICHARD SNYDER, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Frank Hearring brings this civil rights action against Defendants Perry Russell, Harold Wickham, and John Henley (collectively, “Defendants”). Mr. Hearring alleges that Defendants interfered with his right to the free exercise of his religion and violated his right to equal protection under the law by (1) interfering with Mr. Hearring's attempts to bring Taleem services to the prison chapel; (2) interfering with Mr. Hearring's attempts to solicit the donation of religious texts to the prison library; and (3) refusing to provide Mr. Hearring with a Qur'an, a text that is fundamental to his religious practice.
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 67), recommending the dismissal of each of Mr. Hearring's claims. Mr. Hearring had until July 11, 2023 to file an objection to Judge Baldwin's Recommendation. 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 dismiss each of Mr. Hearring's claims.
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.”).
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 the dismissal of all of Mr. Hearring's claims, either because Mr. Hearring failed to exhaust the administrative remedies available to him, because Mr. Hearring's claims do not survive the First Amendment analysis required under Turner v. Safley, or because Mr. Hearring's Complaint fails to allege evidence sufficient to support a finding of genuine dispute of material fact. ECF No. 67 at 12, 16, 18, 20-21. 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. 67) is accepted and adopted in full and that Defendants' motion for summary judgement (ECF No. 49) be GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk ENTER JUDGEMENT in favor of Defendants and CLOSE this case.