Opinion
3:21-cv-00410-MMD-CSD
10-31-2023
ALEXANDREW SCOT VAIL, Plaintiff, v. DARIN BALAAM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
MIRANDA M. DU CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Pro se Plaintiff Alexandrew Scot Vail sued correctional officers and officials involved in his pretrial detention at the Washoe County Detention Facility (“WCDF”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for allegedly imposing unconstitutional conditions of confinement upon him. (ECF No. 8.) Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Craig S. Denney (ECF No. 53), recommending that the Court grant in part, and deny in part, Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 44 (“Motion”)). Objections to the R&R were due October 24, 2023. (See id.) To date, no objections to the R&R have been filed. Because the Court agrees with Judge Denney's analysis in the R&R, and as further explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full and will grant in part, and deny in part, the Motion-and refer this case for a settlement conference.
Because there was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and is satisfied that Judge Denney did not clearly err. See 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). In the R&R, Judge Denney first recommends the Court reject Plaintiff's argument that Defendants are barred from asserting that the conditions he faced at WCDF did not violate the Constitution because Defendants' answer included a denial of Plaintiff's allegations. (ECF No. 53 at 4-5.) Judge Denney then recommends that Defendants' Motion be granted as to the constant illumination portion of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim primarily because Plaintiff did not sufficiently dispute it, but otherwise denied as to the other elements of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim. (Id. at 5-9.) Judge Denney next recommends that Defendants' Motion be granted as to Plaintiff's equal protection claim, noting that even Plaintiff stated in his response that he'll ‘get out of Defendants' way' on this claim. (Id. at 10-12.) Judge Denney finally recommends the Court reject Defendants' qualified immunity argument as to the elements of Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment claim that Judge Denney recommends proceed. (Id. at 12-13.) Judge Denney did not clearly err in the R&R.
It is therefore ordered that Judge Denney's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 53) is accepted and adopted in full.
It is further ordered that Defendants' Motion (ECF No. 44) is granted in part, and denied in part.
It is further ordered that Defendants' Motion is granted insofar as Plaintiff claims that the constant illumination in his cell violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, but otherwise denied as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment conditions of confinement claim.
It is further ordered that Defendant's Motion is granted as to Plaintiff's equal protection claim against Defendant Balaam.
It is further ordered that the Court denies Plaintiff's request that Defendants be procedurally barred from asserting the argument that the conditions Plaintiff faced did not violate the Constitution.
It is further ordered that the Court finds it appropriate to refer this case to a settlement conference before United States Magistrate Craig S. Denney under LR 16-5.
It is further ordered that, if this case does not settle at the settlement conference, the parties must submit a proposed joint pretrial order within 30 days of the settlement conference.