(PC) Kemp v. Woodford, et al, No. 2:2006cv02558 - Document 33 (E.D. Cal. 2009)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Magistrate Judge Gregory G. Hollows on 7/20/09 ORDERING that the 31 Findings and Recommendations are VACATED; w/in 5 days, dfts to re-serve their summary judgment motion on pltf and file proof of re-service; pltf's opposition due w/in 30 days; dfts may file a reply w/in 10 days thereafter. (Yin, K)

Download PDF
(PC) Kemp v. Woodford, et al Doc. 33 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERIC SHAWN KEMP, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. JEANNE WOODFORD, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. CIV S-06-2558 LKK GGH P ORDER / On April 10, 2009, defendants filed a summary judgment motion. Plaintiff did 17 not file a timely opposition. Accordingly, on June 12, 2009, the court recommended that 18 defendants’ motion be granted. 19 On June 24, 2009, plaintiff filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 20 Plaintiff states that he did not receive defendants’ motion. Although it appears that the motion 21 was properly served, the court will vacate the findings and recommendations and direct 22 defendants to re-serve their motion on plaintiff. 23 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 24 1. The June 12, 2009, findings and recommendations are vacated; 25 2. Within five days of the date of this order, defendants shall re-serve their 26 summary judgment motion on plaintiff and file proof of re-service; 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 3. Plaintiff’s opposition to defendants’ motion is due within thirty days of the 2 date of this order; defendants may file a reply within ten days thereafter. Defendants may 3 respond to the opposition by providing proof that plaintiff was indeed previously served. If this 4 response is made, the court will issue further orders, and may strike any opposition filed by 5 plaintiff. 6 DATED: July 20, 2009 7 /s/ Gregory G. Hollows 8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 9 10 ke2558.vac 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 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.