Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al, No. 9:2011cv00064 - Document 210 (D. Mont. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER granting 206 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION TO RENEW SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION PENDING AT TIME OF MANDATORY STAY filed by Lee Enterprises Incorporated. FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 181 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 108 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REMAINING COUNTS filed by Lee Enterprises Incorporated, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 108 MOTION for Summary Judgment DEFENDANT LEE ENTERPRISES INC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON REMAINING COUNTS filed by Lee Enterprises Incorporated. ( Objections to F&R due by 2/17/2012) Signed by Jeremiah C. Lynch on 1/31/2012. (TCL, ) Modified on 2/1/2012 to reflect copy mailed to Spreadbury this date (APP, ). (Entered: 01/31/2012)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al Doc. 210 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION _____________________________________________ MICHAEL E. SPREADBURY, CV 11-64-M-DWM-JCL Plaintiff, ORDER, and FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS vs. BITTERROOT PUBLIC LIBRARY, CITY OF HAMILTON, LEE ENTERPRISES, INC., BOONE KARLBERG, P.C., DR. ROBERT BROPHY, TRISTA SMITH, NANSU RODDY, JERRY STEELE, STEVE SNAVELY, STEVEN BRUNER-MURPHY, RYAN OSTER, KENNETH S. BELL, and JENNIFER LINT, Defendants. _____________________________________________ Before the Court is Defendant Lee Enterprises, Inc.’s motion to renew its previously filed Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 motion for summary judgment upon Plaintiff Michael Spreadbury’s claims against it. The undersigned United States Magistrate Judge had entered Findings and Recommendations on November 30, 2011, recommending that the referenced summary judgment motion be granted in part, and denied in part. Dkt. 181. On December 12, 2011, Spreadbury filed objections to those Findings and Recommendations as permitted under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Dkt. 188. 1 Dockets.Justia.com By Order entered December 13, 2011, however, this action was stayed as to Lee Enterprises by operation of 11 U.S.C. § 362 based on Lee Enterprises’ bankruptcy proceedings. Consequently, the District Court declined to adopt the November 30, 2011 Findings and Recommendation “subject to reconsideration,” and denied Lee Enterprises’ summary judgment motion “subject to renewal” when the bankruptcy stay is lifted. Dkt. 193. On January 30, 2012, Lee Enterprises filed a notice advising the Court that the bankruptcy stay has been lifted. Lee Enterprises now moves to renew its prior summary judgment motion. Based on the foregoing, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Lee Enterprises’ motion to renew is GRANTED, and its prior summary judgment motion (Dkt. 108) is RENEWED. IT IS FURTHER RECOMMENDED that Lee Enterprises’ renewed summary judgment motion be GRANTED in part, and DENIED in part for the reasons stated in the Court’s Findings and Recommendations entered November 30, 2011. Dkt. 181. DATED this 31st day of January, 2012. /s/ Jeremiah C. Lynch Jeremiah C. Lynch United States Magistrate Judge 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.
