Opinion
3:14-cv-00641-RCJ-WGC
01-25-2016
JOSHUA D. BRODSKY, Plaintiff, v. WARDEN BACA et al., Defendants.
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 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered a minute order inter alia denying Plaintiff's motions to: (1) compel Defendants to put parenthesis around the Magistrate Judge's initials in the case numbers on their filings; (2) grant a hearing on Plaintiff's objection (made to the undersigned) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 164); (3) permit Plaintiff to file a sur-reply with respect to Defendants' motion for summary judgment; and (4) grant Plaintiff a default judgment because Defendants had untimely filed their reply to Plaintiff's opposition to their own motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff has objected (via two separate objections) to the order under Rule 72(a). The Court denies the objections. The Magistrate Judge's order was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
On December 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered a minute order denying Plaintiff's motion to "move" exhibits he filed under seal to another docket entry (his reply in support of his motion for summary judgment). The Magistrate Judge denied the motion, noting that he had already granted a previous motion to seal the exhibits and that there was no need to "link" them to the briefing. Plaintiff has objected to the order under Rule 72(a). The Court denies the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
On December 3, 2015, the Magistrate Judge entered an order denying Plaintiff's motions to direct Defendants to locate certain allegedly missing records and to add an additional document for consideration of a pending summary judgment motion. The Magistrate Judge denied the motions, noting that briefing on the summary judgment motion was complete and that the Court would not continue to accommodate Plaintiff's many motions to correct his misidentification or misfiling of various documents. Plaintiff has objected to the order under Rule 72(a). The Court denies the objection. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a). ///
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF Nos. 213, 217, 218, 219) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. DATED this 25th day of January, 2016.
/s/_________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge