Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02788/USCOURTS-caed-2_08-cv-02788-15/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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN,

Plaintiff, No. CIV S-08-2788 KJM EFB P

vs.

MICHAEL VOJKUFKA,

Defendant. 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 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

addressing defendant’s pending motion for summary judgment. The findings and

recommendations were served on all parties and contained notice to all parties that any

objections were to be filed within fourteen days from the date the findings and recommendations

were served. Plaintiff has filed a document identified as objections to the findings and

recommendations. Concurrent with the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge

issued orders. Plaintiff also filed objections to the orders, which the court treats as a motion to

reconsider.

1

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 85 Filed 09/02/11 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

Under Local Rule 303(f), a magistrate judge’s orders shall be upheld unless

“clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” Upon review of the file, the court finds that the

magistrate judge’s rulings are not clearly erroneous or contrary to law. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

304, this court also has conducted a de novo review of the case in light of the defendant’s

pending motion for summary judgment. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the

findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed February 17, 2011, are adopted in

full;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment (Docket No. 39) is denied; 

3. Plaintiff’s motion for a determination that defendant’s declaration was

submitted in bad faith (Docket No. 49) is denied; and

4. Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration is denied. 

SO ORDERED.

DATED: September 1, 2011.

2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:08-cv-02788-KJM-EFB Document 85 Filed 09/02/11 Page 2 of 2