Opinion
3:11-cv-00832-LRH-WGC
02-20-2013
PHILLIP B. ASHDOWN, Plaintiff, v. PRISON HEALTH SERVICES, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (#108) entered on September 18, 2012, recommending granting Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (#48) filed on April 16, 2012, and granting Defendants' Motion to Strike (#82) filed on July 2, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#128) on November 28, 2012. Defendants have not filed a response. This action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and LR IB 1-4 of the Local Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
Refers to court's docket number.
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 relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b) (1) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#108) entered on September 18, 2012, should be adopted and accepted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#108) entered on September 18, 2012, is adopted and accepted, and Defendant's Motion to Strike (#82) is GRANTED. The Clerk of the Court shall STRIKE Plaintiff's Opposition (#80).
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (#48) is GRANTED as follows:
(1) Defendants' Eighth Amendment claims that NDOC medical providers and officials were deliberately indifferent to his need for prescription medication refills, dentures, bowels, and injuries following a fall on October 16, 2010 is DISMISSED without prejudice;
(2) Plaintiff's retaliation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice;
(3) The Nevada Department of Corrections is DISMISSED with prejudice; and
(4) Plaintiff's state law claim for medical malpractice is DISMISSED without leave to amend.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Extend Time (Second Request) is GRANTED nunc pro tunc.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
______________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE