Heilman v. Wasko, et al
Filing
36
ORDER adopting 32 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full and granting in part and denying in part 23 Motion to Dismiss signed by Judge John A. Mendez on 12/18/13. (Kaminski, H)
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
No. 2:12-cv-1966 JAM AC P
Plaintiff,
13
v.
14
TODD WASKO,
15
ORDER
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 September 13, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein
21
which were served on plaintiff and which contained notice to plaintiff that any objections to the
22
findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. Plaintiff has 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 file, the
26
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
/////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed September 13, 2013, are adopted in full; and
3
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 23) is granted in part, dismissing the portion
4
of plaintiff’s claim alleging that defendant issued three retaliatory 128-B Chronos, and denied in
5
part as to the portion of the claim alleging that defendant issued a retaliatory RVR dated October
6
28, 2011.
7
DATED: December 18, 2013
8
/s/ John A. Mendez________________________
9
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
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?