Moreno v. Cortez-Masto et al

Filing 109

ORDERED that P's # 89 Objection to the Magistrate Judge's order is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge's # 83 Order is AFFIRMED. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 1/24/2013. (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

JOSEPH MORENO,

10

Plaintiff,

11

v.

12

CORTEZ-MASTO; et al.,

13

Defendants.

3:11-cv-0179-LRH-WGC
ORDER

14
15

Before the court is pro se inmate plaintiff Joseph Moreno’s (“Moreno”) objections to the

16

Magistrate Judge’s order (Doc. #831 ) denying his motions for retaliation and reconsideration

17

(Doc. ##55, 81). Doc. #89.

18

On May 1, 2012, Moreno filed his motion for retaliation against defendants alleging that

19

defendants retaliated against him by taking discovery documents out of his cell. Doc. #55. On

20

June 11, 2012, the Magistrate Judge heard argument on the motion and denied it finding that

21

defendants had not retaliated against him. See Doc. #78. In response, Moreno filed a motion for

22

reconsideration of that order (Doc. #81) which was denied by the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #83).

23

Thereafter, Moreno filed the present objections to the Magistrate Judge’s order (Doc. #83).

24

Doc. #89.

25
26

1

Refers to the court’s docket

entry number.

1

Local Rule IB 3-1 authorizes a district judge to reconsider any pretrial matter referred to a

2

Magistrate Judge pursuant to LR IB 1-3 where it has been shown that the Magistrate Judge’s order

3

is clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Here, the court has reviewed the documents and pleadings

4

on file in this matter and finds that the Magistrate Judge’s order is not clearly erroneous or contrary

5

to law.

6

Initially, the court notes that although the order itself is brief, the Magistrate Judge heard

7

argument on the underlying motion for retaliation on June 11, 2012. Thus, the court finds that

8

Moreno’s motion received adequate attention and review from the Magistrate Judge and that his

9

objection to the initial order’s brevity is therefore, without merit.

10

Additionally, the court finds that Moreno has failed to show that the Magistrate Judge’s

11

order is either contrary to law or clearly erroneous. Moreno simply re-alleges the arguments

12

outlined in his briefing. He fails to introduce any evidence or point out any legal or factual error in

13

the Magistrate Judge’s order that shows that the Magistrate Judge’s order was incorrect or did not

14

consider all of the facts at the time it was made. Accordingly, the court shall affirm the Magistrate

15

Judge’s order.

16
17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that plaintiff’s objection to the Magistrate Judge’s order
(Doc. #89) is DENIED. The Magistrate Judge’s order (Doc. #83) is AFFIRMED.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

DATED this 24th day of January, 2013.

21
22
23

__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26

2