Heilman v. Sanchez

Filing 104

ORDER signed by District Judge John A. Mendez on 1/6/17 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 6/16/16 85 are ADOPTED in full; The MOTION (ECF No. 64 ) is DENIED without prejudice as to the First Amendment retaliation claim, DENIE D as to the First Amendment access-to-court claim, and the MOTION is DENIED on grounds of qualified immunity; The FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 10/21/16 (ECF No. 99 ) are ADOPTED in full; and The MOTION 64 is GRANTED for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as to the 5/4/09, incident and this claim is dismissed with prejudice. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS HEILMAN,

12
13
14
15

No. 10-cv-01120 JAM DB

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER

L. SANCHEZ,
Defendant.

16
17

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

18

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

19

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

20

On February 17, 2016, defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. (ECF No. 64.)

21

On June 16, 2016 and October 21, 2016, the magistrate judges filed findings and

22

recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all

23

parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen

24

days. (ECF Nos. 85; 99.) Both plaintiff and defendant filed objections to the findings and

25

recommendations of June 16, 2016. (ECF Nos. 86; 87.) Plaintiff filed objections to the findings

26

and recommendations of October 21, 2016. (ECF No. 101.)

27
28

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
1

1

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper

2

analysis.

3

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 16, 2016 (ECF No. 85) are adopted in

5

full;

6

2. The motion (ECF No. 64) is denied without prejudice as to the First Amendment

7

retaliation claim, denied as to the First Amendment access-to-court claim, and the motion is

8

denied on grounds of qualified immunity;

9
10
11

3. The findings and recommendations filed October 21, 2016 (ECF No. 99) are adopted
in full; and
4. The motion (ECF No. 64) is granted for failure to exhaust administrative remedies as

12

to the May 4, 2009, incident and this claim is dismissed with prejudice.

13

DATED: January 6, 2017

14

/s/ John A. Mendez________________________

15

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2