Anderson v. Nev. Dep't of Corrs.

Full title: JOSEPH M. ANDERSON, Plaintiffs, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jul 27, 2017

3:16-cv-00056-RCJ-WGC (D. Nev. Jul. 27, 2017)

Opinion

3:16-cv-00056-RCJ-WGC

07-27-2017

JOSEPH M. ANDERSON, Plaintiffs, v. NEVADA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS et al., Defendants.

ROBERT C. JONES United States District Judge

ORDER

This is a prisoner civil rights case. Pending before the Court are Plaintiff's two objections to an order of the Magistrate Judge staying discovery.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiffs sued Defendants in state court under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, alleging violations of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, retaliation in violation of the First Amendment, and a civil rights conspiracy. The Court permitted certain claims to proceed and gave leave to amend certain other claims. Upon amendment, the Court permitted RLUIPA, First Amendment retaliation, Equal Protection Clause, and civil rights conspiracy claims to proceed but dismissed a due process claim with prejudice. Defendants have filed a motion for summary judgment based on failure to exhaust administrative remedies, the statute of limitations, and on the merits as to the First Amendment retaliation claim. That motion is still pending.

In the meantime, Defendants filed a motion to stay discovery. The Magistrate Judge granted the motion after a hearing, noting that discovery on merits issues was unnecessary until the Court ruled on the exhaustion issue. The Magistrate Judge stayed discovery, except that he permitted Plaintiff to proceed with discovery as to exhaustion issues

II. DISCUSSION

Plaintiff has filed two objections asking the Court to overrule the Magistrate Judge and lift the stay on general discovery. The Court denies the objections. The Magistrate Judge's ruling was not contrary to law or clearly in error. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). Unless the forthcoming report and recommendation were to recommend that the Court deny the summary judgment motion as to exhaustion but grant it on the merits (before Plaintiff has discovery on the merits), Plaintiff has no cognizable complaint with the way the Magistrate Judge has ordered discovery.

CONCLUSION

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF Nos. 47, 48) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 27th day of July, 2017.

/s/_________

ROBERT C. JONES

United States District Judge