Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 105

ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's 104 Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 2/9/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:10-cv-00162-LRH-VPC
ORDER

14
15
16

Before the court is Plaintiff Christopher A. Jones’ Motion for Reconsideration of this court’s
Order (#97) of January 12, 2012, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e).

17

In that Order, the court sustained Defendants’ Objection (#69) to the Magistrate Judge’s Report

18

and Recommendation (#67) entered on October 20, 2011, and referred the matter to the Magistrate

19

Judge for reconsideration of Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#39) on the merits. Furthermore, the

20

court denied as moot Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s Oppositions to Defendants’ Objections

21

(#81), Defendants’ Motion to Strike Unauthorized Portions of Plaintiff’s Objections (#83), and

22

Plaintiff’s Objections (#86) to this Court’s Order denying Plaintiff’s request for an extension of time

23

to file objections, which the court construed as a motion for reconsideration.

24

Plaintiff’s present motion for reconsideration is not based on any asserted factual or legal error

25

in the court’s Order remanding Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss to the Magistrate Judge for

26

consideration on the merits. Instead, Plaintiff asserts that it is a foregone conclusion that the Magistrate

1

Judge will grant Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss, that such a ruling would be erroneous, and thus the

2

court should consider the matter on the merits without remanding to the Magistrate Judge.

3

The court rejects Plaintiff’s attempt to preempt the Magistrate Judge’s consideration of

4

Defendant’s motion on the merits. Until the Magistrate Judge issues a report and recommendation

5

addressing the merits of the pending motion, Plaintiff’s objections are premature and will not be

6

considered.

7

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration (#104) is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED this 9th day of February, 2012.

10
11
12
13

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2