Rodriguez v. Hefflefinger, et al.

Filing 29

ORDER Adopting 28 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Finding Cognizable Claims and Dismissing Remaining Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 3/16/2015. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
10
11

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15

vs.
HEFFLEFINGER, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING
COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND DISMISSING
REMAINING CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS
(Document 28)

16
17

Plaintiff Luis V. Rodriguez (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

18

pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to

19

Court order, he filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 14, 2014. The matter was referred to

20
21
22

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On January 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations
finding certain claims cognizable and dismissing the remaining claims and Defendants. The

23

Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any
24
25
26
27
28

objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted
a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the
Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.
2.

3

The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 30, 2015, are adopted in full;
This action will go forward on the following cognizable claims: (1) retaliation

4

in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Anderson, Hefflefinger,

5

Badger, McAllister, Tredwell, Sheldon, Speidell, Duncan, Lovofoy and Huerta;
6

(2) violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Lovofoy; and (3)

7

violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hefflefinger and Lovofoy

8

based on conditions of confinement; and1

9

3.

10
11
12

All other claims, as well as Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Biter, Williams, Smith,

DaViega and Tarnoff, are DISMISSED from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

13

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

March 16, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

Plaintiff will be instructed on service by separate order.
2