(PC) Heilman v. Whitten, et al, No. 2:2015cv01585 - Document 17 (E.D. Cal. 2016)

Court Description: ORDER signed by Chief Judge Morrison C. England, Jr on 2/17/16 ORDERING that the FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS filed 1/25/16 12 are ADOPTED IN FULL; All Defendants and claims, except the First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Whitten, Dooley, and Mendosa, are DISMISSED from this action. (Mena-Sanchez, L)

Download PDF
(PC) Heilman v. Whitten, et al Doc. 17 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. 2:15-cv-1585 MCE CKD P v. ORDER A. WHITTEN, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights action seeking relief 17 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 January 25, 2016, the magistrate judge filed Findings and Recommendations herein 21 (ECF No. 12) which were served on Plaintiff and which contained notice that any objections to 22 the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff timely filed 23 objections to the Findings and Recommendations. ECF No. 13. In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, the 24 25 Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, 26 including Plaintiff’s objections, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be 27 supported by the record and by proper analysis. 28 /// 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed January 25, 2016 (ECF No. 12) are 3 4 5 6 7 ADOPTED IN FULL. 2. All Defendants and claims, except the First Amendment retaliation claims against Defendants Whitten, Dooley, and Mendosa, are DISMISSED from this action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: February 17, 2016 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 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.