UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION
June 26, 2009
LOUIS MCCOLLUM, PLAINTIFF,
DIRECTOR OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, ET AL., DEFENDANTS.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: VIRGINIA A. Phillips United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge. The Court concurs with and adopts the findings, conclusions and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting defendants' Motion as follows:
(1) Claim 1 is dismissed without prejudice;
(2) Any claim that any defendant obstructed, abused, or mismanaged the grievance process is dismissed without prejudice;
(3) Claim 2 is dismissed without prejudice;
(4) Except for plaintiff's allegation that defendants K.J. Woods and Griffith retaliated against him by attempting to deny him access to the courts, Claim 3 is dismissed without prejudice;
(5) Plaintiff's claim that Costello and Castro refused plaintiff medical treatment, forced plaintiff to take his own blood samples, and allowed plaintiff to inject diabetic inmates is dismissed without prejudice, as is any claim that any other defendant engaged in such conduct;
(6) Plaintiff's claims for monetary damages against defendants in their official capacities are dismissed without leave to amend;
(7) Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that he was denied access to the courts is granted;
(8) Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's First Amendment retaliation claim is granted;
(9) Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that he was subjected to deliberate indifference to a serious medical need in connection with his hepatitis C treatment is granted;
(10) Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that he was denied the free exercise of his religion while he was housed in administrative segregation is granted;
(11) Defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on plaintiff's claim that his rights under RLUIPA were violated while he was housed in administrative segregation; and
(12) Defendants' motion for summary judgment on plaintiff's claim that his Equal Protection rights were violated is granted.
© 1992-2009 VersusLaw Inc.