(PC)Hudson v. Brian et al, No. 1:2008cv00249 - Document 43 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 42 , ORDER Denying Motion for Summary Judgment 33 , 42 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/12/11. (Gonzalez, R)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC)Hudson v. Brian et al Doc. 43 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MICHAEL HUDSON, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 Case No. 1:08-cv-00249 AWI JLT (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT TERRY BRIAN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 (Documents #33 & #42) ________________________________/ 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action 18 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant 19 to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c)(17). 20 On March 31, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations 21 that recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. 42.) The assigned 22 Magistrate Judge found that there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment 23 on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, including (1) whether Plaintiff filed a grievance 24 on June 30, 2007 against Defendants regarding the service of cold meals; (2) whether Defendants 25 had knowledge of the alleged grievance; and (3) whether retaliation was the motivating factor for 26 Defendants’ actions. (Id. at 7.) The assigned Magistrate Judge also recommended that Defendants’ 27 January 21, 2011 objections to Plaintiff’s declaration be granted in part and denied in part. (Id. at 28 8-9.) 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 The Findings and Recommendations contained notice to all the parties that objections, if any, 2 were to be filed within fourteen days of being served with the Findings and Recommendations. As 3 of the date of this order, no objections have been filed. 4 The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 5 636(b)(1)(c). Having carefully reviewed the entire file in this case, the Court finds the Findings and 6 Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. 9 10 adopted in full; 2. 11 12 3. Defendants’ January 21, 2010 objections to Plaintiff’s declaration (Doc. 37) are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and 4. 15 16 Defendants’ December 1, 2010 motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33) is DENIED; 13 14 The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations issued March 31, 2011, are This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge to set a further scheduling conference order. IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 18 Dated: 0m8i78 May 12, 2011 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
