From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

O'Neill v. Bannister

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jan 30, 2013
3:12-cv-00030-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 30, 2013)

Opinion

3:12-cv-00030-LRH-WGC

01-30-2013

CHRISTOPHER O'NEILL, Plaintiff, v. DR. ROBERT BANNISTER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (#34) entered on August 29, 2012, recommending denying Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#10) filed on May 29, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#49) on October 26, 2012, and Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (#53) on November 6, 2012.

Refers to court's docket number.

Also before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (#35) entered on August 29, 2012, recommending denying Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (#24), filed on July 11, 2012. Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#50) on October 26, 2012, and Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (#53) on November 6, 2012.

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.

The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of the Plaintiff, the responses of 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. The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations (#34 and 35) entered on August 29, 2012, should be adopted and accepted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Reports and Recommendations (#34 and 35) entered on August 29, 2012, are adopted and accepted, and Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction (#10) is DENIED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Amended Complaint (#24) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________________

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

O'Neill v. Bannister

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Jan 30, 2013
3:12-cv-00030-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 30, 2013)
Case details for

O'Neill v. Bannister

Case Details

Full title:CHRISTOPHER O'NEILL, Plaintiff, v. DR. ROBERT BANNISTER, et al.…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Jan 30, 2013

Citations

3:12-cv-00030-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Jan. 30, 2013)

Citing Cases

Jefferson v. Katavich

It is unclear whether an individual who seeks medical treatment has a constitutionally protected right to…

Jefferson v. Katavich

It is unclear whether an individual who seeks medical treatment has a constitutionally protected right to…