UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
June 13, 2012
E. G. FLORES, ET AL.,
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Lawrence J. O'Neill United States District Judge
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND R EC OMMENDATIONS , DIS MIS S ING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS (ECF Nos. 61, 62) TWENTY DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Michael Mootry ("Plaintiff") is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 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 May 16, 2012, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint, and issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and defendants from this action. The undersigned has reviewed Plaintiff's Objection, filed on June 12, 2012.
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 May 16, 2012, is adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff's second amended complaint, filed May 1, 2012, against Defendants Hedgpeth, Flores, Wegman, Lewis, and Cabrera for violations of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment for the denial of Jumu'ah services;
3. Defendants Billings and Tarnoff are dismissed from this action, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim under section 1983;
4. Plaintiff's claims based upon denial of prayer oil and the failure to provide a Muslim chaplain or inmate chaplain are dismissed, with prejudice, based upon Plaintiff's failure to state a claim under section 1983;
5. Plaintiff's access to the court and equal protection claims are dismissed, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state a claim;
6. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within twenty days from the date of service of this order; and
7. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw Inc.