Opinion
3:21-cv-00123-ART-CSD
10-10-2023
ROBERT LONNELL SMITH, JR, Plaintiff, v. WASHOE COUNTY, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pro se Plaintiff Robert Lonnell Smith, Jr., currently an inmate in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections (NDOC), brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Plaintiff alleges, inter alia, that, while a pretrial detainee at the Washoe County Detention Facility (WCDF), Defendant Jessica Garza, an employee at Washoe Legal Services (WLS), who WCDF contracts with to provide limited civil legal services to inmates, violated his First Amendment Rights by refusing to send him a complete copy of the Jailhouse Lawyer's Handbook. (ECF No. 8 at 6.) Defendant Garza filed a Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 89), Plaintiff filed a Response (ECF No. 96), and Defendant filed a Reply (ECF No. 97). Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R” or “Recommendation”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 101), recommending that this Court grant Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff then filed a Motion of Non-Opposition to ECF No. 101. (ECF No. 108.) For this reason, and as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R, and will grant Defendant Garza's Motion for Summary Judgment.
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 Denney did not clearly err. Here, Judge Denney recommends granting summary judgment on the First Amendment claim based on the fact that Defendants did not violate any clearly established right. (ECF No. 111 at 9.) The Court agrees with Judge Denney. 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 Denney's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 101) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendant Garza's Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 89) is granted.