Heilman v. Vokufka et al
Filing
85
ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 9/1/11 ADOPTING 74 Findings and Recommendations in Full. Defendant's 39 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiff's 49 Motion for a determination that defendant's declaration was submitted in bad faith is DENIED. Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration is DENIED. (Donati, J)(Donati, J)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,
Plaintiff,
11
12
No. CIV S-08-2788 KJM EFB P
vs.
13
MICHAEL VOJKUFKA,
14
Defendant.
ORDER
/
15
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
16
17
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
18
Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On February 17, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations
19
20
addressing defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. The findings and
21
recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any
22
objections were to be filed within fourteen days from the date the findings and recommendations
23
were served. Plaintiff has filed a document identified as objections to the findings and
24
recommendations. Concurrent with the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge
25
issued orders. Plaintiff also filed objections to the orders, which the court treats as a motion to
26
reconsider.
1
1
Under Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless
2
“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the file, the court finds that the
3
magistrate judge’s rulings are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law.
4
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
5
304, this court also has conducted a de novo review of the case in light of the defendant’s
6
pending motion for summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the
7
findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
8
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
9
1. The findings and recommendations filed February 17, 2011, are adopted in
10
full;
11
2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39) is denied;
12
3. Plaintiff’s motion for a determination that defendant’s declaration was
13
14
submitted in bad faith (Docket No. 49) is denied; and
4. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied.
15
SO ORDERED.
16
DATED: September 1, 2011.
17
18
19
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
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?