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