Bradberry v. Nevada Department of Corrections et al

Filing 93

ORDER adopting and accepting 90 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 41 Motion for Summary Judgment. The Clerk shall enter judgment accordingly. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 08/30/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - KR)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

RONALD BRADBERRY,
CASE NO.: 3:11-CV-00668-RCJ-VPC

9

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

10
11

NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, et al.,

12

Defendants.

13
Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (#90) entered on August 9, 2013. Plaintiff
14
filed his Objections to United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#91) on August
15
14, 2013.
16
The Court has conducted it’s de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of
17
the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant
18
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in
19
whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
20
The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#90) entered on August
21
9, 2013, is adopted and accepted.
22
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) is
23
GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART as follows:
24
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants Nevada Department of Corrections and Pollock are
25
DISMISSED from this action with prejudice.
26
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) is
27
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendant Kersten.
28

1

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) is DENIED

2

as to Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Aten, Henson, Wiley and

3

Miller.

4
5

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim.

6

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) is

7

GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim as it relates to submission of false

8

notice of changes.

9

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment due process claim is

10

DISMISSED as it relates to Plaintiff’s opportunity to call witnesses at his October 27, 2009, disciplinary

11

hearing.

12
13
14
15
16
17

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) is
GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s supervisory liability claims against all Defendants.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment (#41) is DENIED
based on the defense of qualified immunity.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all claims for monetary damages against Defendants in their
official capacities is DISMISSED from this action WITH PREJUDICE.

18

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the only remaining claim in this action is Plaintiff’s Eighth

19

Amendment excessive force claim against Defendants Aten, Henson, Wiley and Miller. The Clerk of

20

the Court shall enter judgment accordingly.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: This 30th day of August, 2013.

23
24
25
26
27
28

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE