Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Antonetti v. Skolnik

United States District Court, D. Nevada

March 31, 2014

JOSEPH ANTONETTI, Plaintiff,
v.
HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al., Defendants.

ORDER

LARRY R. HICKS, District Judge.

Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge William G. Cobb (#161[1]) entered on January 24, 2014, recommending granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#109) filed on June 24, 2013. Plaintiff filed his Objection to Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge (#164) on February 5, 2014, and Defendants filed their Response to Plaintiff's Objection to Court's Report and Recommendation (#166) on February 18, 2014. This action was referred to the 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 response of Defendants, 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 (#161) entered on January 24, 2014, should be adopted and accepted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#161) entered on January 24, 2014, is adopted and accepted, and Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (#109) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows:

(1) Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 4 on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is DENIED; however, the denial is without prejudice to permit Defendants to demonstrate that Count 4, or some portion of it, is/are barred by the applicable statute of limitations;
(2) Defendants' motion to dismiss the equal protection claims in Count 7 is GRANTED and the claim is DISMISSED without prejudice as Plaintiff has failed to properly exhaust his administrative remedies;
(3) Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 9 on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is DENIED;
(4) Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 13 on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is DENIED;
(5) Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 14 on the basis that Plaintiff failed to exhaust his administrative remedies is DENIED;
(6) Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 16 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is GRANTED and Count 16 is DISMISSED without prejudice;
(7) Defendants' motion to dismiss Count 20 for failure to exhaust administrative remedies is GRANTED and Count 20 is DISMISSED without prejudice;
(8) Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count 1 is DENIED; and
(9) Defendants' motion for summary judgment as to Count 2 is GRANTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the parties shall submit their proposed joint pretrial order pursuant to Local Court Rules 16-3 and 16-4 within thirty (30) days of the entry of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.