Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00602/USCOURTS-caed-2_12-cv-00602-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Goldyn Cooper
Plaintiff
Scott Heatley
Defendant
H. Walter Pepper
Defendant
Terri Weinholdt
Defendant

Document Text:

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 

GOLDYN COOPER, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

SCOTT HEATLEY, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:12-cv-00602 KJM DAD P 

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 

 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983 against defendants Dr. Scott Heatley, Dr. H. Walter Pepper and Terri Weinholdt. 

On August 15, 2013, defendant H. Walter Pepper filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff’s complaint 

for failure to state a cognizable claim against him. When plaintiff failed to file a timely 

opposition to the motion, the court ordered plaintiff to file his opposition or statement of nonopposition within thirty days. (ECF No. 28.) Following plaintiff’s September 30, 2013 request 

for an extension of time, the court again ordered plaintiff to file his opposition. (ECF No. 30.) 

On September 30, 2013 and October 17, 2013, plaintiff filed statements of non-opposition to 

defendant Pepper’s motion to dismiss. (ECF No. 29 at 2 and 31.) 

 In light of plaintiff’s statement of non-opposition to the granting of the pending motion, IT 

IS HEREBY RECOMMENDED that: 

///// 

Case 2:12-cv-00602-KJM-KJN Document 32 Filed 11/06/13 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 

gr

as

aft

wi

an

da

sp

F.

Da

DA

coo

1. Def

ranted; 

2. Def

3. Thi

These 

signed to the

fter being ser

ith the court

nd Recomme

ays after serv

pecified time

2d 1153 (9th

ated: Novem

AD:4 

op602.mtdPep

fendant H. W

fendant H. W

is action shal

findings and

e case, pursu

rved with the

. The docum

endations.” A

vice of the ob

 may waive 

h Cir. 1991).

mber 6, 2013

per

Walter Peppe

Walter Peppe

ll proceed as

d recommend

uant to the pr

ese findings 

ment should 

Any respons

bjections. Pl

the right to 

.

3

2

er’s August 1

er be dismiss

s to defendan

dations are s

rovisions of

and recomm

be captioned

se to the obje

laintiff is adv

appeal the D

15, 2013 mo

sed from this

nts Scott He

submitted to

f 28 U.S.C. §

mendations, p

d “Objection

ections shall

vised that fa

District Cour

otion to dism

s action; and

eatley and Te

o the United 

§ 636(b)(l). 

plaintiff may

ns to Magistr

l be filed and

ailure to file 

rt’s order. M

miss (ECF No

d 

erry Weinho

States Distri

Within fourt

y file written

rate Judge’s

d served wit

objections w

Martinez v. Y

o. 22) be 

oldt only. 

ict Judge 

teen days 

n objections 

s Findings 

thin fourteen

within the 

Ylst, 951 

n

Case 2:12-cv-00602-KJM-KJN Document 32 Filed 11/06/13 Page 2 of 2