-SKO (PC) Parks v. Adams et al, No. 1:2008cv01628 - Document 42 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 41 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL; ORDER GRANTING 38 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment With Respect to Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendant Hieng; and ORDER DENYING 38 Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment In All Other Respects, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/7/2011. Defendant T. Hieng terminated. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
-SKO (PC) Parks v. Adams et al Doc. 42 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 CHARLES AUSTIN PARKS, 10 CASE NO. 1:08-cv-01628-LJO-SKO PC Plaintiff, 11 ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATIONS FINDINGS AND v. (Doc. 41) 12 DARYL G. ADAMS, et al., 13 Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Charles Austin Parks (“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. The matter was referred to a United 17 States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 18 On January 14, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which 19 recommended that Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be partially granted and partially 20 denied. (Doc. #41.) The Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained 21 notice that any objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) 22 days of the date on which the Findings and Recommendations were served. No party has filed 23 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court 25 has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court 26 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 /// 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 2 1. The January 14, 2011 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiff’s 4 claims against Defendant Hieng. Defendant Hieng is DISMISSED from this action; 5 and 6 3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment is DENIED in all other respects. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: b9ed48 March 7, 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.