Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00940/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-00940-17/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

WILLIE BRIDGES,

Plaintiff, No. 2:09-cv-0940 TLN DAD P

vs.

SUZAN L. HUBBARD, et al.,

Defendants. ORDER

 /

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action

seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate

Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On July 17, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein

which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY

ORDERED that:

/////

1

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 123 Filed 09/16/13 Page 1 of 2
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

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 17, 2013, are adopted in full; 

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 91) is granted in part

and denied in part as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the statute of

limitations is denied;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s conspiracy

claim is granted;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s retaliation

claim against defendant Davey is denied;

d. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment on plaintiff’s due process

claims is denied as unnecessary; and

e. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment based on the affirmative

defense of qualified immunity is denied.

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment Cruel and Unusual Punishment claim is

dismissed for failure to state a claim;

4. Defendants Crandall, Ivicevich, Johnson, Marquez, Marsh, Marshall, and

Wong are dismissed from this action; and 

5. This matter is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings on

plaintiff’s retaliation claim against defendant Davey. 

DATED: September 13, 2013

/brid0940.801

2

Case 2:09-cv-00940-TLN-EFB Document 123 Filed 09/16/13 Page 2 of 2