Kevin Fernandez Vs. State of Nevada, et al.

Filing 279

ORDER denying 158 Plaintiff's Request for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision; denying 194 Plaintiff's Request for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision; denying 243 Plaintiff's Request for Review of Magistrate Judge Decision; and denying as moot 244 Plaintiff's Motion to Stay. See order re specifics. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/16/09. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SL)

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 27 28
1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA ***** KEVIN LYNN FERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, vs. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants. ) ) 3:06-cv-00628-LRH-RAM ) ) ORDER ) ) ) ) ) )

Before the court are the following: 1. Plaintiff's Motion for Review and Objections to Magistrate's Decision Order

(#153) (#1581), Defendants' Response to Plaintiff's Motion for Review and Objections to Magistrate's Decision Order (#173), and Reply (#193). The Court has conducted its review in this case, has fully considered the Plaintiff's motion, and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1), and concludes that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge's Order (#153) will, therefore, be sustained and Plaintiff's motion (#158) is denied. 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Review and Objections to Magistrate's Order (#178)

(#194). Defendants responded (#214). The Court has conducted its review in this case, has fully considered the Plaintiff's motion, and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1), and concludes

Refers to this court's docket number.

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 27 28

that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge's Order (#178) will, therefore, be sustained and Plaintiff's motion (#194) is denied. 3. Plaintiff's Motion for Review and Objections to Magistrate's Order Docket #231

(#243) and Defendants' Response (#253). The Court has conducted its review in this case, has fully considered the Plaintiff's motion, and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1), and concludes that the Magistrate Judge's ruling was neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. The Magistrate Judge's Order (#231) will, therefore, be sustained and Plaintiff's motion (#243) is denied. 4. (#252). The Court has conducted its review in this case, has fully considered the Plaintiff's motion, and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) and denies Plaintiff's motion (#244) based upon the immediately preceding ruling on Plaintiff's motion (#243), which overruled the objection to the ordered deposition, and also upon the grounds of its being moot in light of the deposition having been previously conducted. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 16th day of March, 2009. Plaintiff's Motion for Stay of Order #231 (#244) and Defendants' Response

LARRY R. HICKS UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2