London v. Daniels

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 EDWARD LONDON, Case No. 3:20-cv-00284-MMD-CLB 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 CHARLES DANIELS, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Edward London brings this action against Defendants Skyler 12 Sheeks and Luis Sencion-Gonzalez under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF No. 8.) Before the 13 Court is the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge 14 Carla L. Baldwin (ECF No. 43), recommending that the Court deny Defendants’ motion 15 for summary judgment (ECF No. 32 (“Motion”)). Objections to the R&R were due 16 November 28, 2022. To date, neither party has objected to the R&R. For this reason, and 17 as explained below, the Court adopts the R&R in full and denies Defendants’ Motion. 18 Because there were no objections, the Court need not conduct de novo review, 19 and is satisfied that Judge Baldwin did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 20 328 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings 21 and recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 22 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original). First, Judge Baldwin correctly 23 found that Defendants’ official capacity argument fails because the claims were screened 24 as personal capacity claims. (ECF No. 43 at 7.) See Mitchell v. Washington, 818 F.3d 25 436, 442 (9th Cir. 2016). Second, the record does not show London’s failure to exhaust 26 because Defendants did not respond to his grievance and administrative remedies were 27 unavailable to him after London was told not to resubmit his grievance. (Id. at 10-11.) See 1 || 44 (2016). Next, Judge Baldwin correctly concluded that there is a genuine issue of 2 || material fact regarding whether Defendants used excessive force against London. (/d. at 3 || 13-14.) See Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Finally, Judge Baldwin 4 || correctly determined that Defendants are not protected by qualified immunity because a 5 || reasonable factfinder could conclude that Defendants violated London's clearly 6 || established constitutional rights. (/d. at 16.) See C.B. v. City of Sonora, 769 F.3d 1005, 7 || 1022 (9th Cir. 2014). Accordingly, the Court adopts Judge Baldwin’s R&R in full and 8 || denies Defendants’ Motion. 9 It is therefore ordered that Judge Baldwin’s Report and Recommendation (ECF 10 || No. 43) is accepted and adopted in full. 11 It is further ordered that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 32) 12 || is denied. 13 It is further ordered that this case is referred to Judge Baldwin to conduct a 14 || settlement conference. The deadline for the parties to file the proposed joint pretrial order 15 || is 30 days from the date of the settlement conference, assuming settlement is not 16 || effectuated. 17 DATED THIS 30" Day of November 2022. 19 MIRANDA 20 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28