Koerner v. Cox et al

Filing 130

ORDERED that the # 105 Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and accepted, and Defendants' # 64 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in its entirety. FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's # 116 Motion to Allow Late Reply Re Doc. 112 is GRANTED. FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/23/2014. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

*****

9
10
11
12
13

KELLY KOERNER,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
JAMES GREG COX, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00116-LRH-VPC
ORDER

14
15

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P.

16

Cooke (#1051) entered on August 21, 2013, recommending granting Defendants’ Motion for Summary

17

Judgment (#64) filed on December 6, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report

18

and Recommendation (#111) on September 23, 2013. Defendants filed an Opposition to Plaintiff’s

19

Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#) on October 7, 2013.

20

In addition, Plaintiff has filed a Motion to Allow Late Reply Re Doc. 112 (#116) on November

21

25, 2013, seeking to file his Reply to Opposition to Objections to R&R (#116-1). Defendants filed

22

their Opposition to Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Late Reply (#117) on November 26, 2013, and Plaintiff

23

filed his Reply to Defendants’ Doc. 117 to Allow Plaintiff’s Doc. 116 to Be Construed as a Sur-Reply

24

(#121) on December 3, 2013.

25
26

1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

Local Rule IB 3-2 does not entitle a party to file a reply to a response to any opposition to a

2

report and recommendation. Nonetheless, the court has considered Plaintiff’s reply in reaching its

3

determination.

4
5

This action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local
Rule 1B 1-4 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

6

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

7

Plaintiff, Defendants’ opposition to the objections, Plaintiff’s reply, the pleadings and memoranda of

8

the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule

9

IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#105) entered

10

on August 21, 2013, should be adopted and accepted.

11

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

12

(#105) entered on August 21, 2013, is adopted and accepted, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary

13

Judgment (#64) is GRANTED in its entirety.

14
15
16

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Allow Late Reply Re Doc. 112 (#116)
is GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

DATED this 23rd day of January, 2014.

20

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26

2