Campbell v. Brown et al

Filing 73

ORDER adopting and accepting 70 Report and Recommendation, granting in part and denying in part 32 Defendants' MOTION for Summary Judgment (see order for specifics), and denying 46 Plaintiff's Cross-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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7

*****

8
9
10
11
12

DAMON LAMAR CAMPBELL,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
COLLIN BROWN; et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00290-LRH-VPC
ORDER

13
14

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

15

Cooke (#701) entered on February 4, 2013, recommending granting in part and denying in part

16

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) filed on April 20, 2012, and denying Plaintiff’s

17

Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#46) filed on May 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objections to

18

Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#71) on February 28, 2013. Defendants filed their

19

Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#72) on March 6,

20

2013. This action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local

21

Rule 1B 1-4 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

22

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

23

the Plaintiff2, the response of the Defendants, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other

24
25

1

Refers to court’s docket number.

26

2

The court compliments Plaintiff on his well written objections and clear printing.

1

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

2

consideration and review, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and

3

Recommendation (#70) entered on February 4, 2013, should be adopted and accepted.

4

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#70)

5

entered on February 4, 2013, is adopted and accepted, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

6

(#32) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

7

1. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s

8

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that he did not receive a written notice of

9

charges at least twenty-four hours before the disciplinary hearing;

10

2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is DENIED as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth

11

Amendment due process claim that Defendant Schaff improperly refused to allow Plaintiff

12

to call an exculpatory inmate witness at the disciplinary hearing;

13

3. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s

14

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that the guilty finding was not based on

15

sufficient evidence;

16

4. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s

17

Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that Defendant Neven, Baca and Morrow

18

improperly denied Plaintiff’s grievances related to the disciplinary proceedings.

19
20

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#46) is
DENIED.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

DATED this 29th day of March, 2013.

23

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26

2