Mitchell v. Daniels, et al (INMATE 1)

Filing 30

ORDERED as follows: 1) The Plf's 29 objection is OVERRULED; 2) The court ADOPTS the 28 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge; 3) The Dfts' 15 Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED; 4) Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the Dfts, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice; 5) Costs are taxed against the Plf. Signed by Honorable Judge W. Harold Albritton, III on 8/18/2015. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION

BILLY J. MITCHELL, #207548,
Plaintiff,
vs.
LEEPOSEY DANIELS, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:12-cv-1008-WHA
(WO)

ORDER
This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #28),
entered on July 14, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s Objection thereto (Doc. #29), filed on July 29, 2015.
Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court
finds the objection to be without merit. The Plaintiff merely repeats his arguments that
additional security measures should be undertaken in an effort to prevent any desecration of the
Native American ceremonial grounds and punish anyone caught desecrating the grounds.
However, the mere fact that the security measures adopted by the Defendants do not prevent all
actions by inmates who desecrate the grounds in violation of institutional rules does not amount
to a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment. The court agrees with the
Magistrate Judge’s finding that the record is devoid of evidence that the Defendants acted in an
intentionally discriminatory manner and that the policies or procedures governing use of the
Native American ceremonial grounds has significantly interfered or substantially burdened the
Plaintiff’s ability to engage in the free exercise of his religion in violation of his First
Amendment rights. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED.
2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED.
4. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the Defendants, and this case is DISMISSED with
prejudice.
5. Costs are taxed against the Plaintiff.
DONE this 18th day of August, 2015.

/s/ W. Harold Albritton
W. HAROLD ALBRITTON
SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE