-EFB (PC) Heilman v. Vojkufka et al, No. 2:2008cv02788 - Document 85 (E.D. Cal. 2011)
Court Description: 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)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
-EFB (PC) Heilman v. Vojkufka et al Doc. 85 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 Dockets.Justia.com 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
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
