From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Padilla v. Nevada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 17, 2011
3:08-cv-00410-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

Opinion

3:08-cv-00410-LRH-WGC

11-17-2011

RAYMOND PADILLA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al.; Defendants.


ORDER

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (#61) entered on September 30, 2011, in which the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's Motions for Permanent Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (docs 48 & 49). Plaintiff filed an objection to the Order (#66) on October 24, 2011. Defendants have not filed a response to the objection. This matter was referred to the U.S. 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 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 (#61) entered on September 30, 2011, should be adopted and accepted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#61) entered on September 30, 2011, is adopted and accepted, and Plaintiff's Motions for Permanent Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (docs 48 & 49) are DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

LARRY R. HICKS

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Padilla v. Nevada

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
Nov 17, 2011
3:08-cv-00410-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)
Case details for

Padilla v. Nevada

Case Details

Full title:RAYMOND PADILLA, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF NEVADA, et al.; Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

Citations

3:08-cv-00410-LRH-WGC (D. Nev. Nov. 17, 2011)

Citing Cases

Burger King Corp. v. Duckrey

[ECF 16, p. 2]. Because Plaintiff's allegations about a public health emergency are speculative guesses, they…