From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Parks v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 27, 2007
03:06-CV-00095-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 27, 2007)

Opinion

03:06-CV-00095-LRH-VPC.

September 27, 2007


ORDER


Presently before the court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Valerie P. Cooke (# 167) entered on August 7, 2007, recommending that Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 108) be denied and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 141) be granted. Plaintiff has filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (## 174, 176) to which Defendants subsequently responded (# 177).

Refers to the court's docket number.

The court has conducted a de novo review and has fully considered the objections of Plaintiff, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties, and other relevant matters of record pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule IB 3-2. As a result of this review, the court determines that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (# 167) should be adopted and accepted.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (# 167) is ADOPTED and ACCEPTED. Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment (# 108) is hereby DENIED. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (# 141) is hereby GRANTED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Parks v. McDaniel

United States District Court, D. Nevada
Sep 27, 2007
03:06-CV-00095-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 27, 2007)
Case details for

Parks v. McDaniel

Case Details

Full title:L. SEVILLE PARKS, Plaintiff, v. E.K. McDANIEL, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Nevada

Date published: Sep 27, 2007

Citations

03:06-CV-00095-LRH-VPC (D. Nev. Sep. 27, 2007)

Citing Cases

Aytch v. Cox

Although Defendants argue that "Plaintiff cannot demonstrate that he is likely to succeed on the merits, when…