Burns v. Sandoval et al
| David Burns |
| Harold Byrne, Clark, William Gittere, Hammel, Healer, Hal Hollingsworth, Walter Romero, Tasheena Sandoval, C/O Travis and Underwood |
| 3:2018cv00086 |
| February 23, 2018 |
| U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada |
| Reno Office |
| Valerie P. Cooke |
| Miranda M. Du |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
123
ORDERED that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 121 ) to the Report and Recommendation is overruled. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 120 ) is accepted and adopted in full. Defendants' motion for summary judgment ( ECF No. 105 ) is granted. Plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 111 ) is denied. Plaintiff's motion for an adjudication as to liability (ECF No. 104 ) is denied as moot. Plaintiff's motion for a temporary restraining order (ECF No. 103 ) is denied as moot. Clerk is directed to enter judgment accordingly and close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 3/1/2021. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
117
ORDER granting ECF No. 106 Motion to Seal. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 8/26/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
|
|
Filing
101
ORDER granting ECF No. 100 Motion to Extend Time : Status Report due by 7/14/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 7/13/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)
|
|
Filing
85
ORDER - The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin (ECF No. 84 ) is accepted and adopted in full.Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64 ) is granted. Clerk is directed to file Plaintiff's Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 64 -1). Counts will proceed or are dismissed as specified herein.Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File a Second Amended Complaint (ECF No. 51 ) and Second Request for Leave to File a Third Amended Complaint (ECF No. 65 ) are denied as moot.Signed by Chief Judge Miranda M. Du on 4/6/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
|
|
Filing
81
ORDER - Motion for Order Compelling Discovery (ECF No. 70 ) is DENIED.Motion for Sanctions (ECF No. 71 ) is DENIED. Motion to Extend Time for Discovery (ECF No. 72 ) is unopposed and is GRANTED as follows:- Discovery shall be completed no later than Monday, March 30, 2020;- Dispositive Motions shall be filed no later than Thursday, April 30, 2020;- The joint pretrial order shall be filed no later than Monday, June 1, 2020, or 30 days after the decision of any pending dispositive motions.Defendants' Motion to Extend Deadline to file Dispositive Motion (ECF No. 75 ) is GRANTED. As stated above, dispositive motions are due on Thursday, April 30, 2020.Motio n for Inquiry on Previously sent Motions (ECF No. 76 ) is GRANTED. Other motions submitted by Plaintiff concerning filing a third amended complaint (ECF Nos. 64 and 65 ), and for the appointment of counsel (ECF No. 79 ) will be addressed in subsequent orders in due course. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin on 1/30/2020. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - AB)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER granting ECF No. 26 Motion: Early Mediation Conference Statement due by 6/21/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Carla Baldwin Carry on 6/20/2019. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - LH)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Nevada District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
