Summary
noting that pro se litigants "are not excused from following the rules and orders of the court, including the discovery rules," granting the defendants' summary judgment motion with respect to the plaintiff's claims against unidentified Doe defendants, and dismissing those claims where the plaintiff "was afforded sufficient opportunity to pursue discovery to identify" those defendants and amend his complaint but "did not diligently do so"
Summary of this case from Reyes v. MeyerOpinion
2:06-CV-0835-RLH-GWF.
January 17, 2008
ORDER
Before this Court is the Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#45, filed December 12, 2007), entered by the Honorable George W. Foley, regarding Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#38, filed August 30, 2007). No objection was filed to Magistrate Judge Foley's Findings and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge in accordance with Local Rule IB 3-2 of the Rules of Practice of the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, and the matter was submitted for consideration.
The court has conducted a de novo review of the record in this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and (C) and Local Rule IB 3-2 and determines that the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Foley should be accepted and adopted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#45, entered December 12, 2007) is ACCEPTED, AFFIRMED, and ADOPTED; Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED as to Count I of Plaintiff's amended complaint, and GRANTED as to Counts II and III.