Heilman v. Vokufka et al

Filing 15

ORDER signed by Judge Frank C. Damrell, Jr on 12/14/2009 ORDERING 14 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS are adopted in full; and the following claims are dismissed w/out prejudice: That dft violated his right to adequate medical care; That dft violated his right to due process in the grievance system; and, that dft retaliated against him. (Matson, R)

Download PDF
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 vs. VOKUFKA, Defendant. / 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 General Order No. 262. On September 21, 2009, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff has not 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 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2788 FCD EFB P ORDER 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 system; and, full; and 1. The findings and recommendations filed September 21, 2009, are adopted in 2. The following claims are dismissed without prejudice: a. That defendant violated his right to adequate medical care; b. That defendant violated his right to due process in the grievance c. That defendant retaliated against him. DATED: December 14, 2009. _______________________________________ FRANK C. DAMRELL, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT 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?