Johnson v. Young et al

Filing 67

ORDER adopting and accepting 60 / 61 Report and Recommendation; granting in part and denying in part 36 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment; and denying 38 / 56 Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 11/18/15. (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

LAUSTEVEION JOHNSON,

10

CASE NO.: 3:14-CV-00178-RCJ-VPC

Plaintiff,
ORDER

11

v.

12

N. YOUNG, et al.,

13

Defendant.
_______________________________________

14
15

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge (#60 and 611)

16

entered on October 8-9, 2015, recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary

17

Judgment (ECF #38/56) and grant and deny in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF

18

#36). On October 26, 2015 Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrates Report and Recommendation on

19

Dispositive Motions (ECF #63). On October 26, 2015 Defendants filed a Limited Objection to

20

Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation (ECF #64). On November 9, 2015 Plaintiff filed his Response

21

to Defendants Objection to Magistrate Report and Recommendation (ECF #65). On November 9, 2015

22

Defendants filed thier Opposition to Plaintiff’s Objection to Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation

23

on Dispositive Motions (ECF #66).

24

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

25

the Plaintiff, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant

26

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s

27

Report and Recommendation (#60/61) entered on October 8-9, 2015, should be ADOPTED AND

28

ACCEPTED.

1

Refers to court’s docket number.

1

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #36) is

2

GRANTED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment Retaliation Claim against Defendants Baker, Cox, and

3

Moore; First Amendment Access to the Courts Claims; and Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Claims,

4

but DENIED as to Plaintiff’s First Amendment Retaliation Claim against Defendant Young.

5
6
7

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF #38/56) is
DENIED in its entirety.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 18th day of November, 2015.

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES