Summary
holding that a defendant's statement that he was convinced the plaintiff was guilty of the charges against him was a statement of an opinion rather than fact
Summary of this case from Rowley v. MorantOpinion
3:09-CV-663-AC
02-06-2012
ROBERT J. LARRY, Plaintiff, v. ERIC NISLEY, in his individual capacity, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
BROWN, Judge.
Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#161) on October 21, 2011, in which he recommends the Court grant Defendant Eric Nisley's Motion (#50) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, assault, and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims on the ground that Plaintiff failed to plead facts sufficient to state any such claims. The Magistrate Judge also recommends the Court deny Defendant's Motion as to Plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress because Plaintiff has demonstrated disputes of material fact exist and preclude summary judgment as to those claims.
Defendant filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).
When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).
This Court has carefully considered each of Defendant's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#161) and, accordingly, GRANTS Defendant's Motion (#50) for Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff's 42 U.S.C. § 1983, 42 U.S.C. § 1985, assault, and breach-of-fiduciary-duty claims and DENIES Defendant's Motion as to Plaintiff's claims for defamation and intentional infliction of emotional distress.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Anna J. Brown
United States District Judge