(PC) Magnan v. Runnels, et al, No. 2:2003cv01099 - Document 141 (E.D. Cal. 2009)
Court Description: FINDINGS and RECOMMENDATIONS signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/14/09 RECOMMENDING that the motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Wright, Delgado and Nolan 123 be granted; Defendants Wright, Delgado and Nolan be granted s ummary judgment on all of plaintiffs claims against them arising under federal law; the court decline any jurisdiction that may arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 with respect to any claims against Wright, Delgado and Nolan arising under California law; and the aforementioned defendants be dismissed from this action. Referred to Judge Garland E. Burrell, Jr. Objections to F&R due within 20 days.(Dillon, M)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Magnan v. Runnels, et al Doc. 141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 PAUL P. MAGNAN, Plaintiff, 11 No. CIV S-03-1099 GEB KJM P vs. 12 13 DAVID RUNNELS, et al., 14 Defendants. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDS / 15 On May 21, 2009, defendants Wright, Delgado and Nolan (defendants) moved for 16 17 summary judgment on plaintiff’s federal claims against them. Plaintiff, who is represented by 18 counsel, has indicated he does not oppose the motion. Moreover, the court has reviewed 19 defendants’ unopposed motion and the evidence in support, and concludes defendants have made 20 a showing that they are entitled to summary judgment under Rule 56 of the Federal Rules of 21 Civil Procedure. Therefore, good cause showing, IT IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 1. The motion for summary judgment filed by defendants Wright, Delgado and 22 23 Nolan (docket #123) be granted; 2. Defendants Wright, Delgado and Nolan be granted summary judgment on all 24 25 of plaintiff’s claims against them arising under federal law; 26 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 3. The court decline any jurisdiction that may arise under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 with 1 2 respect to any claims against Wright, Delgado and Nolan arising under California law; and 3 4. The aforementioned defendants be dismissed from this action. 4 These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District 5 Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty 6 days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written 7 objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned 8 “Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.” Any reply to the objections 9 shall be served and filed within five days after service of the objections. The parties are advised 10 that failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District 11 Court’s order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991). 12 DATED: July 14, 2009. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 1 mag1099.57 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.
