Hutchins v. Nevada NDOC et al

Filing 51

ORDER. IT IS ORDERED that Ds 46 Mtn for DJ to Reconsider Order is GRANTED to the limited extent that the transpositional error in 44 Order should be, and hereby is, corrected by this order. With regard to the Ds challenge of the MJs order granting P leave to file second amend comp, Ds repeat their same arguments which were previously presented to Magistrate Judge Cobb as well as to this court in Ds objection to Judge Cobbs R&R. No other grounds for reconsideration of the courts ruling have been shown, with the exception of the editing correction previously ordered, and Ds 46 Motion for Reconsideration is hereby DENIED.Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 6/4/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - PM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9

TYRONE HUTCHINS,

10

Plaintiff,
vs.

11
12

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
) Case No. 3:10-cv-00369-LRH-WGC
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)

14
15
16
17

Before the court is Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration of Order Adopting Report
and Recommendation (#46)1. No opposition has been filed on behalf of Plaintiff.
The Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration is based in significant part upon a

18

misstatement by the court in the first page of its order (#44) adopting the Report and

19

Recommendation (#42) of Magistrate Judge Cobb. In Order #44, the court mistakenly identified

20

Plaintiff as having filed document #43, which was Defendants’ Objection to the Report and

21

Recommendation by Magistrate Judge Cobb. This court further compounded the mistake by

22

stating that Defendants had not filed an opposition to the objection. Actually document #43 was

23

Defendants’ Objection to the Report and Recommendation and it was Plaintiff who had not filed

24

an opposition to the objection. The court regrets this editing error; however it confirms that a de

25

novo review was conducted by the court on all dispositive matters contained within the Report

26

and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Cobb.

27

Defendants’ Motion for District Judge to Reconsider the Order is GRANTED to the

28
1

Refers to the court’s docket number.

1

limited extent that the above stated transpositional error in Order #44 should be, and

2

hereby is, corrected by this order.

3

With regard to the Defendants’ challenge of the Magistrate Judge’s order granting

4

Plaintiff leave to file his second amended complaint, Defendants repeat their same arguments

5

which were previously presented to Magistrate Judge Cobb as well as to this court in Defendants’

6

objection to Judge Cobb’s Report and Recommendation. No other grounds for reconsideration

7

of the court’s ruling have been shown, with the exception of the editing correction previously

8

ordered, and Defendants’ Motion for Reconsideration (#46) is hereby DENIED.

9
10

IT IS SO ORDERED.

11

DATED this 4th day of June, 2012.

12
13

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2