Elawyers Elawyers
Washington| Change

BRODSKY v. BACA, 3:14-cv-00641-RCJ-WGC. (2015)

Court: District Court, D. Nevada Number: infdco20151204b37 Visitors: 2
Filed: Dec. 03, 2015
Latest Update: Dec. 03, 2015
Summary: ORDER ROBERT C. JONES , District Judge . Plaintiff Joshua Brodsky is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. He has sued several defendants in this Court under 42 U.S.C. 1983. He alleges that between November 22 and 26, 2014, three corrections officers gratuitously assaulted him, that on November 22, and 26, 2014, two corrections officers sexually harassed him (verbally), and that corrections officers have made threats against him. The Court permitted the first
More

ORDER

Plaintiff Joshua Brodsky is a prisoner in the custody of the Nevada Department of Corrections. He has sued several defendants in this Court under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that between November 22 and 26, 2014, three corrections officers gratuitously assaulted him, that on November 22, and 26, 2014, two corrections officers sexually harassed him (verbally), and that corrections officers have made threats against him. The Court permitted the first claim to proceed, dismissed the second claim with prejudice, and dismissed the third claim with leave to amend. The Court denied Plaintiff's three motions for a preliminary injunction because Plaintiff did not indicate that any assaults were continuing.

On November 16, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered a minute order denying Plaintiff's three motions requesting a "default" as to his objections to previous orders by the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff has objected to the order under Rule 72(a). The Court denies the objection. Plaintiff presents no argument explaining why the magistrate judge's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Indeed, those objections were directed to the undersigned, and the undersigned had denied them.

On November 20, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered a minute order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to identify the last known addresses of five witnesses Plaintiff would like to call at trial. The Magistrate Judge denied the order as premature, as no joint pretrial statement had been filed or any trial scheduled. Plaintiff has objected to the order under Rule 72(a). Plaintiff has not shown that the Magistrate Judge's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF Nos. 199, 200) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer