Simpson v. Agatone et al

Filing 20

ORDER that the 16 Report and Recommendation is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full. This case is dismissed as to Naphcare for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff. (see Order for details regarding claims allowed/not allowed to proceed). Signed by Judge Richard F. Boulware, II on 10/16/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLD)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9

DERRICK SIMPSON,

10
11
12
13

Case No. 2:15-cv-00254-RFB-CWH
Plaintiff,

v.

ORDER

F. AGATONE, et al.,
Defendants.

14
15
Before the Court for consideration is the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) of the
16
Honorable Carl W. Hoffman, United States Magistrate Judge, entered September 5, 2018.
17
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
18
recommendations made by the magistrate.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A party may file specific
19
written objections to the findings and recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C.
20
§ 636(b)(1); Local Rule IB 3-2(a). When written objections have been filed, the district court is
21
required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed
22
findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Local
23
Rule IB 3-2(b). Where a party fails to object, however, a district court is not required to conduct
24
“any review,” de novo or otherwise, of the report and recommendations of a magistrate judge.
25
Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Pursuant to Local Rule IB 3-2(a), objections were due
26
by September 19, 2018. No objections have been filed. The Court has reviewed the record in this
27
case and concurs with the Magistrate Judge’s recommendations.
28
1

1
2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16) is
ACCEPTED and ADOPTED in full.

3

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that:

4

•

Officer Spurling;

5
6

•

•

to amend;

10
•

Simpson’s Thirteenth Amendment claim (claim three) against Clark County and the
Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department are dismissed, without leave to amend;

12
13

Simpson’s Fifth Amendment claim (claim two) against Officers Carter, Spurling,
Hatchett, Thomas, Agatone, Maldonado, and Clark County are dismissed, with leave

9

11

the portion of claim one alleging a false arrest claim will proceed against Officer
Spurling and Officer Carter;

7
8

the portion of claim one alleging an excessive force claim will proceed against

•

Simpson’s Sixth Amendment claim (claim four) against Clark County is dismissed,
with leave to amend;

14
15

•

Simpson’s Eighth Amendment claim (claim five) is dismissed, without leave to amend;

16

•

Simpson’s Fourteenth Amendment claim (claim six) against Spurling, Carter,

17

Maldonado, Hatchett, Agatone, Thomas, the LVMPD, and Clark County is dismissed,

18

with leave to amend; and

19

•

this case is dismissed as to Naphcare for failure to state a claim, with leave to amend.

20

The Clerk of Court is directed to serve a copy of this Order upon Plaintiff.

21
22

DATED this 16th day of October, 2018.

23
______________________________
RICHARD F. BOULWARE, II
UNITED STATES DISTRCIT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2