Pierce v. Skoinik

Filing 83

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that the 77 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is well-taken, and is therefore APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Defendant's 58 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. FURTHER ORDERED, Defendant's 79 Motion for Leave to File Second Dispositive Motion is referred to the Magistrate Judge for disposition. Signed by Judge Edward C. Reed, Jr on 1/6/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KO)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEVADA
RENO, NEVADA

5
6
7
SPENCER PIERCE,
8
Plaintiff,
9
vs.
10

HOWARD SKOLNICK, et al.,
11
Defendants.
12

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

3:10-cv-00239-ECR-VPC
Order

13
14

On November 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and

15 Recommendation (#77) recommending that Defendants’ Motion for Summary
16 Judgment (#58) be denied.

The Magistrate Judge found that Defendants

17 had failed to submit admissible evidence in support of their motion
18 because they failed to authenticate the attached exhibits.

The

19 Magistrate Judge further found that Defendants have similarly failed
20 to authenticate their evidence in numerous cases.
21 filed.

No objections were

We agree with the Magistrate Judge that a Court is unable to

22 grant a motion for summary judgment when the moving party has failed
23 to submit admissible evidence. The Report and Recommendation (#77) is
24 well-taken, and is therefore APPROVED AND ADOPTED. Defendant’s Motion
25 for Summary Judgment (#58) is DENIED.
26
27
28

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File

2 Second Dispositive Motion (#79) is referred to the Magistrate Judge
3 for disposition.
4
5
6 DATED: January 6, 2012.
7
____________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2