Jones v. Skolnik et al

Filing 144

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Defendants' Objection 133 and Plaintiff's Objection 134 are DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's Order (130) is AFFIRMED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike 142 is DENIED as moot.IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 7/16/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - MLC) Modified on 7/17/2012 to clarify document number. (MLC).

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

9

CHRISTOPHER A. JONES,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,

13

Defendants.

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

14
15

Before the court are Defendants’ objection (#1331 ) and Plaintiff’s objection (#134) to the

16

Magistrate Judge’s Order (#130) of May 15, 2012. In response to Defendants’ objection, Plaintiff filed

17

an opposition (#135), and Defendants filed a reply (#139). Plaintiff then filed a Motion to Strike (#142)

18

Defendants’ reply brief as unauthorized under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a) and Local Rule IB 3-2. No response

19

was filed to Plaintiff’s objection.

20

I.

21

Defendants’ Objection (#133)
Defendants specifically object to that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order granting Plaintiff’s

22

Motion to Amend Screening Order (#114) “to the extent that Count IV of the amended complaint (#16)

23

shall include a retaliation claim against Defendant Schulz and an allegation that Defendant Schulz directed

24

Defendant Berry to write a notice of false charges.” The order further grants Defendant Schulz and Berry

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket

entry number.

1

leave to “raise any defenses they feel necessary to address this revision,” and notes that in light of the

2

Court’s ruling, Plaintiff would stipulate to the dismissal of Defendants Schulz in Count III, which has since

3

occurred (see #131).

4

Local Rule IB 3-1 authorizes a district judge to reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a

5

magistrate judge pursuant to LR IB 1-3 where it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge’s order is

6

clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Here, the court finds that Defendants have failed to establish any

7

clear error or legal error in the Magistrate Judge’s order granting, to a certain extent, Plaintiff’s motion to

8

amend the court’s screening order. The Magistrate Judge’s recognition of a claim inadvertently

9

overlooked by the court at the screening stage is a remedial action that furthers the interests of justice and

10

is within the court’s inherent authority to reconsider its rulings before entry of final judgment. Defendants’

11

objection shall therefore be denied, and Plaintiff’s motion to strike Defendants’ reply brief in support of

12

the objection shall be denied as moot.

13

II.

14

Plaintiff’s Objection (#134)
Plaintiff objects to that portion of the Magistrate Judge’s order (#130) denying Plaintiff’s “Motion

15

for Order, and Motion to Stay Motion to Dismiss” (#112). Plaintiff makes no prayer, however, that the

16

Magistrate Judge’s ruling be reconsidered and reversed. Instead, Plaintiff represents that the objection is

17

lodged “for the sole purpose of preserving the issues as related to the motion for order (#112),” and he

18

“prays that these objections are duly noted.” Objection (#134), pp. 1, 9. As Plaintiff requests no relief,

19

and in any event Plaintiff has made no showing that the Magistrate Judge’s denial of his motion (#112) is

20

clearly erroneous or contrary to law, the objection shall be denied.

21

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Objection (#133) and Plaintiff’s Objection

22

(#134) are DENIED. The Magistrate Judge’s Order (#130) is AFFIRMED.

23

///

24

///

25

///

26

2

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike (#142) is DENIED as moot.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3

DATED this 16th day of July, 2012.

4
5
6

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

3