Padilla v. The State of Nevada, in rel, The Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 52

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 46 is adopted and accepted. FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 37 is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. The claims against the State of N evada and NDOC are DISMISSED with prejudice; The claims asserted against Defendants under 42:1983 in their official capacities with respect to damages are DISMISSED with prejudice; Plaintiff's claim that Defendants violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause is DISMISSED with prejudice; The claims asserted against Defendants Guinn, Gibbons, Masto, Miller, Whorton, Crawford, Skolnik, Cox, Irvin, Oxborrow, Weiss, Drain, and Peltzer are DISMISSED with prejudice; The mot ion to dismiss on the ground of claim preclusion is DENIED; The motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity is DENIED; and Defendants McDaniel, Brooks, Endel, DAmico, and Bannister are ordered to answer Plaintiff's Amended Complain t within fourteen (14) days after the entry of this order. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order 31 and Motion for Preliminary Injunction 32 are DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/12/2011. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13

RAYMOND PADILLA,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:08-cv-00410-LRH-RAM
ORDER

14
15

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert A.

16

McQuaid (#461) entered on June 3, 2011, recommending granting in part and denying in part

17

Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#37) filed on November 30, 2010, and further recommending that

18

Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#31) and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#32)

19

be denied. Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#47) on

20

June 13, 2011. Defendants did not file an opposition to Plaintiff's Objections. This action was referred

21

to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 1B 1-4 of the Rules of

22

Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

23

The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of

24

the Plaintiff, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant

25
26

1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Magistrate

2

Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#46) entered on June 3, 2011, should be adopted and accepted.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#46)

4

entered on June 3, 2011, is adopted and accepted.

5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#37) is GRANTED IN
PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

7

!

The claims against the State of Nevada and NDOC are DISMISSED with prejudice;

8

!

The claims asserted against Defendants under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 in their official capacities

9
10

with respect to damages are DISMISSED with prejudice;
!

11
12

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants violated his rights under the Equal Protection Clause is
DISMISSED with prejudice;

!

The claims asserted against Defendants Guinn, Gibbons, Masto, Miller, Whorton,

13

Crawford, Skolnik, Cox, Irvin, Oxborrow, Weiss, Drain, and Peltzer are DISMISSED with

14

prejudice;

15

!

The motion to dismiss on the ground of claim preclusion is DENIED;

16

!

The motion to dismiss on the ground of qualified immunity is DENIED; and

17

!

Defendants McDaniel, Brooks, Endel, D’Amico, and Bannister are ordered to answer

18

Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days after the entry of this order.

19

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order (#31)

20

and Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#32) are DENIED.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED this 12th day of July, 2011.

23
24
25

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26

2