(PC) Johnson v. Martel et al, No. 2:2009cv02103 - Document 57 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 6/30/11 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 5/3/11 55 are ADOPTED in full; Defendants' 10/27/10 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 51 is GRANTED; Defendants' 10/08/10 MOTION for SUMMARY JUDGMENT 48 is DENIED as moot; This Action is CLOSED.(Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Johnson v. Martel et al Doc. 57 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 JOSEPH JOHNSON, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 No. 2:09-cv-2103 JAM JFM (PC) G. BISHOP, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On May 3, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 21 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has filed 22 objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed May 3, 2011, are adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ October 27, 2010 motion for summary judgment is granted; 4 3. Defendants’ October 8, 2010 motion for summary judgment is denied as moot; 5 6 7 and 4. This action is closed. DATED: June 30, 2011 8 /s/ John A. Mendez UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 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.