Bishop v. Potter et al

Filing 160

ORDER that Magistrate Judge Foleys Order 132 is AFFIRMED, Plaintiffs Motion 135 is denied, and Defendant Potters Motion for Sanctions 113 is granted as ordered. Signed by Chief Judge Roger L. Hunt on 7/12/10. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - ECS)

Download PDF
Bishop v. Potter et al Doc. 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 _________________________________ ROGER L. HUNT Chief U.S. District Judge Before the Court is an Order (#132) entered by the Honorable George W. Foley, regarding Defendant's Motion for Sanctions (#113). Plaintiff filed a Motion for the District Judge to Reconsider Judge Foley's Order (#135) in accordance with Local Rule IB 3-1 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and this matter was referred for consideration. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-1 and determines that the Order of Magistrate Judge Foley is not clearly erroneous or contrary to law and should be affirmed. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Foley's Order (#132) is AFFIRMED, Plaintiff's Motion (#135) is denied, and Defendant Potter's Motion for Sanctions (#113) is granted as ordered. Dated: July 12, 2010. KEVIN BISHOP, ) ) Plaintiff(s), ) ) vs. ) ) JOHN E. POTTER, et al., ) ) Defendant(s). ) ____________________________________) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA *** Case No. 2:08-cv-0726-RLH-GWF ORDER Dockets.Justia.com

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?