From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

ROBINSON v. BACA

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 20, 2010
3:08-cv-00389-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 20, 2010)

Opinion

3:08-cv-00389-HDM-VPC.

September 20, 2010


ORDER


The plaintiff has filed objections to the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (#58), which were received by the court after it filed its order adopting the report and recommendation. The court has considered the plaintiff's objections, and hereby reaffirms its order adopting and accepting the magistrate judge's report and recommendation. The court notes the following in response to the plaintiff's objections.

First, plaintiff asserts that the report and recommendation contains erroneous statements. Those statements identified by the plaintiff were not material to the court's determination.

Second, plaintiff asserts a factual dispute exists as to whether he was treated weekly after his injury. Whether plaintiff was treated weekly was not material to the court's determination. Instead, the court's finding that defendants did not exhibit deliberate indifference to plaintiff's serious medical needs was based the frequent treatment of plaintiff's injury, not necessarily on its weekly occurrence.

Third, the plaintiff asserts that the magistrate judge makes findings of fact with respect to his Equal Protection claim. The plaintiff does not identify what findings of fact were made, nor can the court ascertain any from the report. Rather, the magistrate judge simply recommends sua sponte dismissal of this cause of action for failure to state a claim.

Fourth, with respect to his state law claims plaintiff asserts that the court should either exercise supplemental jurisdiction or remand them to state court. The court reaffirms its decision declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims. Moreover, as this case was originally filed in federal court, the state causes of action cannot be remanded to the state court.

Fifth, plaintiff asserts the magistrate judge did not address his Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(f) argument. While true, the court did address this aspect of plaintiff's opposition in its order adopting the report and recommendation.

Finally, the plaintiff asserts that the magistrate judge failed to address the immunity arguments. The report and recommendation does address Eleventh Amendment immunity, and the court is not required to reach qualified immunity as plaintiff has not proven a constitutional violation.

The remainder of plaintiff's objections are vague and conclusory, especially regarding his conspiracy claim. Accordingly, after fully considering the plaintiff's objections and considering the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record in accordance with the requirements of 28 U.S.C. § 636 and applicable law, the court hereby reaffirms its order dated September 15, 2010 (#59) adopting and accepting the report and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: This 20th day of September, 2010.


Summaries of

ROBINSON v. BACA

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 20, 2010
3:08-cv-00389-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 20, 2010)
Case details for

ROBINSON v. BACA

Case Details

Full title:JERMAINE ROBINSON, Plaintiff, v. JAMES BACA, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Sep 20, 2010

Citations

3:08-cv-00389-HDM-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 20, 2010)