-SMS (PC) Brush v. Farber-Szekrenyi et al, No. 1:2007cv01009 - Document 123 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 120 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and PARTIALLY GRANTING Defendants' 102 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/29/2011. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
-SMS (PC) Brush v. Farber-Szekrenyi et al Doc. 123 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 GARY H. BRUSH, 10 11 12 CASE NO. 1:07-cv-01009-LJO-SMS PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND PARTIALLY GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT v. J. WOODFORD, et al., (ECF Nos. 102, 113, 120) 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Gary H. Brush (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma 16 pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. At this juncture, this action is 17 proceeding on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed June 30, 2008, against Defendants J. Harper, 18 Ortiz, Lee, Jasso, Rangel, Gonzales, Cano, N. Greene, King, and Catalano. The matter was referred 19 to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On February 15, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations 21 recommending that Defendants Harper, Ortiz, Lee, Jasso, King, and Catalano’s motion for summary 22 judgment be partially granted. The parties were given thirty days within which to file objections, and 23 none were filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a 25 de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings 26 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The findings and recommendations, filed February 15, 2011, is adopted in full; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, filed September 16, 2010, is 2 PARTIALLY GRANTED and summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendant 3 Ortiz; 4 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED in all other respects; and 5 4. This matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: b9ed48 March 29, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.