Cox v. Benedetti et al

Filing 111

ORDER granting in part 58 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 93 Motion to Strike ; denying 97 Motion for Sanctions re Discovery; dismissing with prejudice plaintiff's 14th Amendment claim; adopting Report and Recommendations re 105 Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/14/11. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LG)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13

STEVE MICHAEL COX,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES BENEDETTI, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:08-cv-00502-LRH-VPC
ORDER

14
15

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P.

16

Cooke (#1051) entered on August 2, 2011, recommending granting in part Defendants’ Motion for

17

Summary Judgment (#58), dismissing with prejudice Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, and

18

denying Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (#93) and Motion for Sanctions (#97). Plaintiff filed his Objections

19

to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#109) on August 15, 2011, and Defendants filed

20

their Opposition to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on August

21

29, 2011 (#110). This action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(B)

22

and Local Rule 1B 1-4 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of

23

Nevada.

24

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

25
26

1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

the Plaintiff, the opposition of Defendants, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other

2

relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court

3

determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#109) entered on August 2, 2011,

4

should be adopted and accepted.

5

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

6

(#109) entered on August 2, 2011, is adopted and accepted, and Defendant’s Motion for Summary

7

Judgment (#58) is GRANTED in part for Plaintiff’s claims against defendant Benedetti, Corda, Peery,

8

Breackbill, Bannister, Cox, Helling, and Bagwell; Plaintiff’s First Amendment access to the court

9

claims; and Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment deliberate indifference claims.

10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment claim for deprivation of

11

property is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e), for failure to state a

12

claim upon which relief may be granted.

13
14

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motions to Strike (#93) and for Sanctions (#97)
are DENIED.

15

IT IS SO ORDERED.

16

DATED this 14th day of September, 2011.

17
18
19

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2