Hendrix v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 77

ORDER - The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 72 ) is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED : Count I is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 61 ) with respect to the retaliation claim asserted in Cou nt III is GRANTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the Fourth Amendment claim asserted in Count III is GRANTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the Eighth Amendment claims in Co unts IV and V are GRANTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment with respect to the First Amendment retaliation claim in Count V on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is GRANTED. Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to HEALER, SANDOVAL, BAKER, FOSTER, COX, MCDANIEL AND SISCO in Count VI is GRANTED. Signed by Judge Robert C. Jones on 10/24/2018. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT CCOURT

3

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

4
5
6

JAMAL DAMON HENDRIX,

7
8

Plaintiff,
vs.

9
10

STATE OF NEVADA, et al.,
Defendants.

11

) Case No.: 3:15-CV-00336-RCJ-WGC
)
) ORDER
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

12
13
14

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate
Judge (ECF No. 721) entered on September 18, 2018, recommending that the Court

15
16
17
18
19

grant Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment. On October 15, 2018, Plaintiff filed
Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 75).
The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case, has fully considered the
objections of the Plaintiff, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other

20
21

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

22

The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF

23

No. 72) entered on September 18, 2018 should be ADOPTED and ACCEPTED.

24
25

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Count I is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with

26
27
28

respect to the retaliation claim asserted in Count III is GRANTED.
1

Refers to Court’s docket number.

ORDER - 1

1
2

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with
respect to the Fourth Amendment claim asserted in Count III is GRANTED.

3
4
5
6
7
8

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with
respect to the Eighth Amendment claims in Counts IV and V are GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment with
respect to the First Amendment retaliation claim in Count V on the basis that Plaintiff
failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is GRANTED.

9
10

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment as to

11

HEALER, SANDOVAL, BAKER, FOSTER, COX, MCDANIEL AND SISCO in Count VI

12

is GRANTED.

13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 24TH Day of October, 2018.

15
16
17

ROBERT C. JONES
Senior District Judge

18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

ORDER - 2