Freeman v. Adams et al

Filing 10

ORDER denying 7 Motion for Summary Judgment signed by Magistrate Judge Sandra M. Snyder on 06/8/2010. (Lundstrom, T)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Plaintiff Travis Leon Freeman, a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on December 8, 2009. On December 21, 2009, Plaintiff filed a motion for summary judgment. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c), summary judgment is appropriate when it is demonstrated that there exists no genuine issue as to any material fact, and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Summary judgment must be entered, "after adequate time for discovery and upon motion, against a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial." Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322, 106 S.Ct. 2548 (1986). /// /// /// /// /// 1 v. (Doc. 7) DERRALL G. ADAMS, et al., Defendants. / TRAVIS LEON FREEMAN, Plaintiff, CASE NO. 1:09-cv-02129-SMS PC ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendants have not yet been served with process and have not made an appearance in this action. Therefore, Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is premature and is HEREBY DENIED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: i0d3h8 June 8, 2010 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?