Opinion
3:14-cv-00641-RCJ-WGC
11-09-2015
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 screened the Complaint, permitting the first claim to proceed, dismissing the second claim with prejudice, and dismissing 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 September 24, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a minute order denying Plaintiff's motion to compel Warden Baca and the Nevada Department of Corrections ("NDOC") to permit him to review his mental health records to aid him in responding to a pending motion for summary judgment. The magistrate judge refused to compel the discovery, noting that the information Plaintiff sought via the records was not relevant to the remaining claims and that neither Baca nor NDOC were parties subject to discovery. The magistrate judge suggested Plaintiff request the records via a standard prison "kite." Plaintiff has objected to the order under Rule 72(a). The Court denies the objection. Plaintiff presents no argument explaining why the magistrate judge's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
On October 1, 2015, the magistrate judge entered a minute order denying as moot Plaintiff's motion to compel Defendants to produce a medical report and certain NDOC incident reports because Defendants had provided the incident reports and had made the medical report available upon submission of a "kite." The magistrate judge also denied sanctions against Defendants. Plaintiff has objected to the order under Rule 72(a). The Court denies the objection. Plaintiff presents no argument explaining why the magistrate judge's order was clearly erroneous or contrary to law. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a).
CONCLUSION
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objections (ECF Nos. 145, 152) are DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated this 9th day of November, 2015.
/s/_________
ROBERT C. JONES
United States District Judge