From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rodriguez v. Hefflefinger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 16, 2015
1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015)

Opinion

1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC

03-16-2015

LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. HEFFLEFINGER, et al., Defendants.


ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS FINDING COGNIZABLE CLAIMS AND DISMISSING REMAINING CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (Document 28)

Plaintiff Luis V. Rodriguez ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action. Plaintiff filed this action on February 14, 2013. Pursuant to Court order, he filed a Second Amended Complaint on July 14, 2014. 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 30, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations finding certain claims cognizable and dismissing the remaining claims and Defendants. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff has not filed objections.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 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 January 30, 2015, are adopted in full;



2. This action will go forward on the following cognizable claims: (1) retaliation in violation of the First Amendment against Defendants Anderson, Hefflefinger, Badger, McAllister, Tredwell, Sheldon, Speidell, Duncan, Lovofoy and Huerta; (2) violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendant Lovofoy; and (3) violation of the Eighth Amendment against Defendants Hefflefinger and Lovofoy based on conditions of confinement; and



3. All other claims, as well as Defendants Hubbard, Cate, Biter, Williams, Smith, DaViega and Tarnoff, are DISMISSED from this action.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

Plaintiff will be instructed on service by separate order.

Dated: March 16 , 2015

/s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Rodriguez v. Hefflefinger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
Mar 16, 2015
1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015)
Case details for

Rodriguez v. Hefflefinger

Case Details

Full title:LUIS V. RODRIGUEZ, Plaintiff, v. HEFFLEFINGER, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Date published: Mar 16, 2015

Citations

1:13cv00231 LJO DLB PC (E.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2015)