Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01480/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-01480-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOHN PATRICK WINKLEMAN,

Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR,

Defendants.

No. 2:13-cv-1480 MCE DAD P

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief 

under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On January 14, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 

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

the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed 

objections to the findings and recommendations.

The Court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be 

supported by the record and by the magistrate judge’s analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY 

ORDERED that:

/////

/////

Case 2:13-cv-01480-MCE-CKD Document 28 Filed 03/11/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

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:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s suit for damages against defendant 

CDCR is GRANTED;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s request for injunctive relief against 

defendant CDCR is GRANTED;

c. Defendant CDCR is DISMISSED from this action;

d. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint for failure to state a claim 

against defendants Anthony and Nicolau is DENIED; 

e. Defendants’ motion to dismiss based on the affirmative defense of qualified 

immunity is DENIED; and

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. 

Case 2:13-cv-01480-MCE-CKD Document 28 Filed 03/11/15 Page 2 of 2