HARDEN v. SOBORO, 2:14-cv-00560-JAD-NJK. (2015)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20150520e67
Visitors: 19
Filed: May 19, 2015
Latest Update: May 19, 2015
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for "redress as a matter of law considering the exceptional circumstances and outrageous conduct of defendants." See Docket No. 80. Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 84. No reply was filed. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff asserts that former Deputy A
Summary: ORDER NANCY J. KOPPE , Magistrate Judge . Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for "redress as a matter of law considering the exceptional circumstances and outrageous conduct of defendants." See Docket No. 80. Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 84. No reply was filed. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff asserts that former Deputy At..
More
ORDER
NANCY J. KOPPE, Magistrate Judge.
Pending before the Court is Plaintiff's motion for "redress as a matter of law considering the exceptional circumstances and outrageous conduct of defendants." See Docket No. 80. Defendants filed a response in opposition. Docket No. 84. No reply was filed. The Court finds the motion properly resolved without oral argument. See Local Rule 78-2. For the reasons discussed below, the motion is hereby DENIED.
Plaintiff asserts that former Deputy Attorney General Kali Fox Miller had entered into an oral settlement agreement with him, but provides no declaration or evidentiary support for that assertion. See Docket No. 80 at 1. Moreover, Defendants have provided documentation that the telephone conversation actually related to setting a settlement conference in another case. See Docket No. 84 at 2, Docket No. 84-1.1 Plaintiff also asserts that Defendants are engaged in various types of wrongdoing, such as denying him medical care and making racial slurs. See Docket No. 80 at 2. No details are provided with respect to the wrongdoing alleged and, once again, Plaintiff provides no declaration or evidentiary support for the assertion.
Having failed to sufficiently support the allegations in his motion, Plaintiff's pending motion is hereby DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Plaintiff makes much of the fact that the deputy attorney general assigend to this case has changed several times, see Docket No. 80 at 2, but the Court discerns no nefarious conduct in Defendants' changes in counsel.
Source: Leagle
