Cochrane v. Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department et al

Filing 129

ORDER adopting and accepting 126 Report and Recommendation, denying 59 Plaintiff's MOTION for Summary Judgment, and granting 79 Defendants' Counter MOTION for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 3/29/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13
14

TERRY R. COCHRANE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
LAS VEGAS METROPOLITAN POLICE
)
DEPARTMENT; et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00092-LRH-WGC
ORDER

15

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G.

16

Cobb (#1261) entered on January 30, 2013, recommending denying Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

17

Judgment (#59) filed on June 6, 2012, and granting Defendants’ Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment

18

(#79) filed on June 28, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objection to Magistrate Judges Report and

19

Recommendation (#127) on February 14, 2013. Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff's

20

Objection to Magistrate Judges Report and Recommendation (#128) on March 4, 2013. This action

21

was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 1B 1-4 of the

22

Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

23

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

24

the Plaintiff, the response of the Defendants, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other

25
26

1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court

2

determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#126) entered on January 30,

3

2013, should be adopted and accepted.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

5

(#126) entered on January 30, 2013, is adopted and accepted, and Defendants’ Cross-Motion for

6

Summary Judgment (#79) is GRANTED.

7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (#59) is DENIED.

8

IT IS SO ORDERED.

9

DATED this 29th day of March, 2013.

10
11

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26

2