Hudson v. Brian et al

Filing 43

ORDER Adopting Findings and Recommendations 42 , ORDER Denying Motion for Summary Judgment 33 , 42 , signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/12/11. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL HUDSON,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

Case No. 1:08-cv-00249 AWI JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

vs.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT

TERRY BRIAN, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

(Documents #33 & #42)

________________________________/

17

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

18

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant

19

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Local Rule 302(c)(17).

20

On March 31, 2011, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations

21

that recommended Defendants’ motion for summary judgment be denied. (Doc. 42.) The assigned

22

Magistrate Judge found that there are genuine issues of material fact precluding summary judgment

23

on Plaintiff’s First Amendment retaliation claim, including (1) whether Plaintiff filed a grievance

24

on June 30, 2007 against Defendants regarding the service of cold meals; (2) whether Defendants

25

had knowledge of the alleged grievance; and (3) whether retaliation was the motivating factor for

26

Defendants’ actions. (Id. at 7.) The assigned Magistrate Judge also recommended that Defendants’

27

January 21, 2011 objections to Plaintiff’s declaration be granted in part and denied in part. (Id. at

28

8-9.)
1

1

The Findings and Recommendations contained notice to all the parties that objections, if any,

2

were to be filed within fourteen days of being served with the Findings and Recommendations. As

3

of the date of this order, no objections have been filed.

4

The Court has conducted a de novo review of this case in accordance with 28 U.S.C. §

5

636(b)(1)(c). Having carefully reviewed the entire file in this case, the Court finds the Findings and

6

Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.

7

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

8

1.

9
10

adopted in full;
2.

11
12

3.

Defendants’ January 21, 2010 objections to Plaintiff’s declaration (Doc. 37) are
GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; and

4.

15
16

Defendants’ December 1, 2010 motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33) is
DENIED;

13
14

The Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations issued March 31, 2011, are

This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge to set a further scheduling conference
order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17
18

Dated:
0m8i78

May 12, 2011
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2