Cox v. Whorton et al

Filing 78

ORDER DENYING P's 65 Motion for the Record..., and therefore the Magistrate Judge's # 64 Order is sustained. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 8/13/2010. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

Download PDF
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 _____________________________________ ROBERT C. JONES UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE Before the Court is Plaintiff's Motion for the Record of Formal Objections' to Court's (6-4-10) Order (#64) Denying Plaintiff's Request for Discovery (First); Production of Documents and Request for Admissions (#65) filed on June 28, 2010. Defendants' Opposition to Motion for the Record of Formal Objections' to Court's (6-9-10)'s Order Denying Plaintiff's Request for Discovery (First); Production of Documents and Request for Admissions (#66) was filed on July 7, 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. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Order (#64) will, therefore, be sustained and Plaintiff's Motion for the Record of Formal Objections' to Court's (6-4-10) Order (#64) Denying Plaintiff's Request for Discovery (First); Production of Documents and Request for Admissions (#65) is DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED: this 13th day of August, 2010. v. GLEN WHORTON, et al., Defendants. ___________________________________ STEVE MICHAEL COX, Plaintiff, ORDER 3:08-CV-110-RCJ(VPC) UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

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?