Summary
finding a challenge to a policy against CDs with explicit lyrics survived summary judgment because no evidence of legitimate penological interests was produced by defendants
Summary of this case from Florence v. FrauenheimOpinion
3:07-cv-00460-LRH-ram.
June 9, 2011
ORDER
Before this Court is the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Robert A. McQuaid (#173) entered on April 7, 2011, recommending granting in part and denying in part Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#161) filed on October 8, 2010. Plaintiff filed his Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#174) on April 21, 2011. Plaintiff also filed a Motion to Strike or Reply to Defendants' Objections to Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (#177) on May 9, 2011. Defendants filed their Objections to Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge (#175) on April 25, 2011, and they filed their Opposition to Plaintiff's Objections to Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#176) on May 2, 2011 (#176).
Refers to court's docket number.
The action was referred to the Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)B 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 and the Defendants, Defendants' opposition to Plaintiff's objections, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike or Reply to Defendants' Objections, 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 (#173) entered on April 7, 2011, should be adopted and accepted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (#173) entered on April 7, 2011, is adopted and accepted, and Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#161) is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:
• Summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count I;
• Summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count II;
• Summary judgment should be DENIED as to Count III;
• Summary judgment should be DENIED as to Count IV;
• Summary judgment should be DENIED as to Count V;
• Summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count VI;
• Summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count VII;
• Summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count VIII;
• Summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count IX;
• Summary judgment should be DENIED as to Count X;
• Summary judgment should be GRANTED as to Count XI.
IT IS SO ORDERED.