Heilman v. Cherniss et al

Filing 85

ORDER signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 11/20/13 ORDERING the findings and recommendations filed 7/31/13, are adopted in full; Defendant Forncrook's motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust available administrative rem edies prior to filing suit (ECF No. 55 ) is denied; and Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 54 ) is granted as to defendant Lesane on all claims, denied as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants Cherniss and Forncrook, and denied as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against defendant Forncrook. (Becknal, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

No. 2:11-cv-0042-JAM-EFB P

v.

ORDER

C. CHERNISS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

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.
On July 31, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which

20
21

were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the

22

findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Both parties have filed

23

objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this

24
25

court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire

26

file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by

27

proper analysis.

28

/////
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1. The findings and recommendations filed July 31, 2013, are adopted in full;

3

2. Defendant Forncrook’s motion to dismiss on the ground that plaintiff failed to exhaust

4
5

available administrative remedies prior to filing suit (ECF No. 55) is denied; and
3. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 54) is granted as to defendant

6

Lesane on all claims, denied as to the First Amendment retaliation claims against defendants

7

Cherniss and Forncrook, and denied as to the Fourteenth Amendment due process claim against

8

defendant Forncrook

9
10

So ordered.
DATED: November 20, 2013

11

/s/ John A. Mendez_________________________

12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2