KOERNER v. COX, 3:11-cv-00116-LRH-VPC. (2012)
Court: District Court, D. Nevada
Number: infdco20120113a63
Visitors: 9
Filed: Jan. 10, 2012
Latest Update: Jan. 10, 2012
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (#32 1 ) entered on December 8, 2011, recommending granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#19) filed on July 12, 2011. Plaintiff filed his Non Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#33) on December 20, 2011. Defendants did not file a reply. The action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(
Summary: ORDER LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge. Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (#32 1 ) entered on December 8, 2011, recommending granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#19) filed on July 12, 2011. Plaintiff filed his Non Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#33) on December 20, 2011. Defendants did not file a reply. The action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(b..
More
ORDER
LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (#321) entered on December 8, 2011, recommending granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (#19) filed on July 12, 2011. Plaintiff filed his Non Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#33) on December 20, 2011. Defendants did not file a reply. The action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)B and the Local Rules of Practice, LR IB 1-4.
The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case, has fully considered the non objection of the Plaintiff, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) (B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#32) entered on December 8, 2011, should be adopted and accepted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#32) entered on December 8, 2011, is adopted and accepted, and Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (#19) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follow:
1. Defendants' motion to dismiss Defendants in their official capacities based on Eleventh Amendment immunity should be GRANTED, and Plaintiff's monetary damages claims against Defendants in their official capacities should be DISMISSED with prejudice; and
2. Defendants' motion to dismiss based on Plaintiff's failure to state a claim, Defendants' lack of personal participation, and qualified immunity should be DENIED without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. Refers to court's docket number.
Source: Leagle
