Countryman v. Nevada

Full title: RALPH COUNTRYMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Aug 8, 2011

3:10-cv-00107-LRH-RAM (D. Nev. Aug. 8, 2011)

Opinion

3:10-cv-00107-LRH-RAM

08-08-2011

RALPH COUNTRYMAN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al., Defendants.

LARRY R. HICKS

ORDER

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid, Jr. (#29¹) entered on June 27, 2011, recommending granting in part and denying in part Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss (#16) filed on January 18, 2011. No objection to the Report and Recommendation has been filed. The action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)B and Local Rule 1B 1-4 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.

1 Refers to court's docket number.

The Court has conducted its de novo review in this case, has fully considered 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 Report and Recommendation (#29) entered on June 27, 2011, should be adopted and accepted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#29) entered on June 27, 2011, is adopted and accepted, and Defendant's Partial Motion to Dismiss (#16) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as follows:

• The motion to dismiss as to Plaintiff's claim in Count II that Defendants violated his due process rights in connection with his placement in disciplinary segregation is DENIED;

• The motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claim in Count II that Defendants violated his due process rights by depriving him of his prison job, pay, and by depriving him of his preferred housing assignment is GRANTED;

• The motion to dismiss with prejudice as to Plaintiff's claim in Count II that Defendants violated his due process rights as a result of the processing of his disciplinary appeal is GRANTED;

• The motion to dismiss without prejudice as to Plaintiff's claims under the First Amendment and RLUIPA in Count IV is GRANTED;

• The motion to dismiss as to Defendant Stewart is DENIED; and

• The motion to dismiss with prejudice as to all claims asserted against Defendant Skolnik is GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 8th day of August, 2011.

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE