Schiro v. Clark et al

Filing 115

ORDERED that the # 111 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED. FURTHER ORD that Ds' # 92 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: FURTHER ORD that Ds' Motion for Summary Judgment is GR ANTED as to P's First Amendment retaliation claim. FURTHER ORD that Ds' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Plaintiff's 14th Amendment due process claims. FURTHER ORD that Ds LeGrand and Palmer are DISMISSED from this action , as they were sued in their official capacities only. FURTHER ORD that Ds' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED as to P's supervisory liability claims. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/11/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

KENNETH J. SCHIRO,

8

3:10-CV-00203-RCJ-VPC

Plaintiff,
ORDER

9

v.

10

STEPHEN CLARK, et al.,

11

Defendant.
______________________________________

12
13

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (#111) entered on January 14, 2013.

14

Plaintiff filed Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and/or Motion for

15

Reconsideration (#112) on February 4, 2013.

16

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

17

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

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in

19

whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

20

The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#111) entered on

21

January 14, 2013 is adopted and accepted.

22
23

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#111)
is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED.

24
25

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#92) is
GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

26

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED

27

as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

28

///

1
2
3
4
5
6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as
to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claims.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ LeGrand and Palmer are DISMISSED from this
action, as they were sued in their official capacities only.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED
as to Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims.

7

IT IS SO ORDERED.

8

DATED: this 11th day of March, 2013.

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 CHIEF JUDGE