Stackhouse v. Fairchild et al

Filing 45

ORDER adopting and accepting 37 Report and Recommendation. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#17) is DENIED on the ground that Plaintiff's action is dismissed for failure to exhaust available administrative remedies, EXCEP T that Plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim related to his chipped tooth is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants as to the remaining Eighth Amendment claim. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 9/28/12. (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

ANGELO COREY STACKHOUSE,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
DR. FAIRCHILD; et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
_____________________________________ )

3:11-cv-00495-LRH-WGC
O RDER

14
15

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

16

(#371 ) entered on May 31, 2012, recommending denying Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

17

(#17) filed on November 14, 2011, on exhaustion grounds, except as to the claim related to Plaintiff

18

chipping his tooth, and that summary judgment be granted in Defendants’ favor as to the remaining

19

Eighth Amendment claim. No objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. The

20

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

21

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 pleadings and

23

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

24

and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

25
26

1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

(#37) entered on May 31, 2012, should be adopted and accepted.

2

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#37)

3

entered on May 31, 2012, is adopted and accepted, and Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment

4

(#17) is DENIED on the ground that Plaintiff’s action is dismissed for failure to exhaust available

5

administrative remedies, EXCEPT that Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim related to his chipped

6

tooth is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE; and

7
8
9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that summary judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants
as to the remaining Eighth Amendment claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 28th day of September, 2012.

11
12
13

_______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2