Opinion
3:11-cv-00290-LRH-VPC
03-29-2013
DAMON LAMAR CAMPBELL, Plaintiff, v. COLLIN BROWN; et al., Defendants.
ORDER
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (#70) entered on February 4, 2013, recommending granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) filed on April 20, 2012, and denying Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#46) filed on May 16, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#71) on February 28, 2013. Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#72) on March 6, 2013. This action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 1B 1-4 of the 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 response of the Defendants, 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. After careful consideration and review, the Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#70) entered on February 4, 2013, should be adopted and accepted.
The court compliments Plaintiff on his well written objections and clear printing.
--------
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#70) entered on February 4, 2013, is adopted and accepted, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:
1. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that he did not receive a written notice of charges at least twenty-four hours before the disciplinary hearing;
2. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is DENIED as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that Defendant Schaff improperly refused to allow Plaintiff to call an exculpatory inmate witness at the disciplinary hearing;
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that the guilty finding was not based on sufficient evidence;
4. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#32) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourteenth Amendment due process claim that Defendant Neven, Baca and Morrow improperly denied Plaintiff's grievances related to the disciplinary proceedings.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Cross-Motion for Summary Judgment (#46) is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
_______________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE