Martinez v. Adams et al, No. 1:2009cv00899 - Document 47 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING IN FULL 44 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS which DENIES Defendants Motion for Summary Adjudication AND DENIES Without Prejudice Defendants Renewed Motion to Dismiss Misjoined Defendants 33 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 8/11/2010. (Marrujo, C)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Martinez v. Adams et al Doc. 47 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE 8 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 STEVEN C. MARTINEZ, 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 ) ) ) ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) DERRAL G. ADAMS, et al., ) ) ) Defendants. ) ____________________________________) 1:09cv0899 LJO DLB ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Document 44) 17 18 On July 14, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 19 Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the issue of whether any Defendants conspired to 20 undermine Plaintiff’s health care treatment be DENIED. The Magistrate Judge also DENIED 21 WITHOUT PREJUDICE Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss misjoined defendants. The 22 Findings and Recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice that any objections 23 were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the order. 24 On July 23, 2010, Defendants filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations. In 25 their objections, Defendants essentially contend that the uncontroverted evidence demonstrates that 26 they did not conspire to undermine Plaintiff’s medical care or to retaliate against him. Defendants 27 request that the Court decline to adopt the Findings and Recommendations, and instead grant 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the conspiracy claim. Defendants also request that 2 the Court grant the motion to dismiss misjoined Defendants. 3 4 5 Any reply to the objections was to be filed within fourteen (14) days after service of the objections. Plaintiff did not file a reply. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de 6 novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court concludes that the 7 Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 8 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 9 1. The Findings and Recommendations issued July 14, 2010, are ADOPTED IN FULL; 10 2. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication on the issue of whether any Defendants 11 12 conspired to undermine Plaintiff’s health care treatment is DENIED; and 3. 13 Defendants’ renewed motion to dismiss misjoined defendants is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 66h44d August 11, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
