Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Heilman v. Vokufka

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA


September 21, 2009

THOMAS JOHN HEILMAN, PLAINTIFF,
v.
VOKUFKA, DEFENDANT.

ORDER AND FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 2, 2009, the court screened plaintiff's complaint. The court found that the November 20, 2008, complaint stated one claim against defendant Vokufka. However, the court found it did not state cognizable claims that defendant Vokufka violated his right to adequate medical care, due process of law in the grievance system, or retaliated against him. The court explained to plaintiff that he either could proceed with his action solely against defendant on the claim stated in the complaint, or file an amended complaint in an attempt to correct the deficiencies in the claims enumerated above. On September, 10, 2009, plaintiff submitted the documents necessary for service on defendant Vokufka based on the claim he stated in the complaint.

The court construes plaintiff's election to proceed against defendant only on the claim stated and as consent to dismissal of all other claims.

Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that the Clerk randomly assign a United States District Judge to this case.

Further, it is RECOMMENDED that the following claims be dismissed without prejudice:

1. That defendant violated his right to adequate medical care;

2. That defendant violated his right to due process in the grievance system; and,

3. That defendant retaliated against him.

These findings and recommendations are submitted to the United States District Judge assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within twenty days after being served with these findings and recommendations, any party may file written objections with the court and serve a copy on all parties. Such a document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendations." Failure to file objections within the specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Turner v. Duncan, 158 F.3d 449, 455 (9th Cir. 1998); Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d 1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

20090921

© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.



Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.