Spreadbury v. Bitterroot Public Library et al

Filing 210

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, ).

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

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