-CMK (PC) Knapp v. Hickman et al, No. 2:2005cv02520 - Document 235 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 4/7/2011 ORDERING that the court DECLINES TO ADOPT the findings and recommendations as to claims 9 and 10 m, o and x and REFERS this portion of the summary judgment back to the Magistrate Judge for further consideration; and the court ADOPTS the findings and recommendations as to claims 1, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10 d, e, f, g, h, i, q, r, s and w, and claim 12, and GRANTS the motion for summary judgment as to those claims.(Waggoner, D)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-CMK (PC) Knapp v. Hickman et al Doc. 235 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 ERIC CHARLES RODNEY K’NAPP, Plaintiff, 10 No. CIV S-05-2520 FCD CMK P vs. 11 R.Q. HICKMAN, et al., 12 Defendants 13 / 14 On September 2, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and 15 Recommendations, recommending that defendants’ motion for summary judgment be granted. 16 Plaintiff filed objections and defendants filed a reply to the objections. 17 Having reviewed the findings and recommendations and the parties’ filings, and 18 good cause occurring, the court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations as to claims 19 9 and 10 m, o and x. The findings and recommendations appear to rely on the rationale of Heck 20 v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477 (1994) in deciding those claims, but do not discuss the other cases 21 that discuss application of the Heck doctrine to retaliation claims. 22 As to the rest of plaintiff’s claims, the court has conducted a de novo review of 23 this case in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304. 24 Based on a careful review of the file, plaintiff’s objections to the findings and recommendations 25 and defendants’ reply, the court finds the findings and recommendations as to the rest of the 26 claims to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 2 1. The court declines to adopt the findings and recommendations as to claims 9 3 and 10 m, o and x and refers this portion of the summary judgment back to the Magistrate Judge 4 for further consideration; 5 2. The court adopts the findings and recommendations as to claims 1, 3 5, 7, 8, 6 10 d, e, f, g, h, i, q, r, s and w, and claim 12, and grants the motion for summary judgment as to 7 those claims. 8 DATED: April 7, 2011. 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 2 12 knap2520.reref 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
