(PC) Winkleman v. CDCR, et al, No. 2:2013cv01480 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr. on 3/10/2015 ADOPTING IN FULL 27 Findings and Recommendations; GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's suit for damages against Defendant California Department of Corrections and Reh abilitation; GRANTING 15 Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's request for injunctive relief against Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation; DISMISSING Defendant California Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation fr om this action; DENYING 15 Motion to Dismiss the plaintiff's complaint for failure to state a claim against Defendants M. Anthony, B. Nicolau; DENYING 15 Motion to Dismiss based on the affirmative defense of qualified immunity; ORDERING Defendants M. Anthony, B. Nicolau to file an answer within thirty (30) days. (Michel, G.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Winkleman v. CDCR, et al Doc. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JOHN PATRICK WINKLEMAN, 12 Plaintiff, 13 14 No. 2:13-cv-1480 MCE DAD P v. ORDER CDCR, 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 January 14, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 20 21 which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to 22 the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 24 25 supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 26 ORDERED that: 27 ///// 28 ///// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 2 3 4 1. The findings and recommendations filed January 14, 2015 (ECF No. 27), are ADOPTED in full; 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part as follows: 5 a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit for damages against defendant 6 CDCR is GRANTED; 7 b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against 8 defendant CDCR is GRANTED; 9 c. Defendant CDCR is DISMISSED from this action; 10 d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim 11 against defendants Anthony and Nicolau is DENIED; 12 e. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of qualified 13 immunity is DENIED; and 14 15 16 17 3. Defendants Anthony and Nicolau are directed to file an answer within thirty (30) days of the order adopting these findings and recommendations. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 10, 2015 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.
