Irvin v. Yates, et al.

Filing 138

ORDER ADOPTING 136 Findings and Recommendation and DENYING 89 Motion to Dismiss the Complaint, signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 4/7/16. (Marrujo, C)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KAJAUNA KENYATTA IRVIN,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14

v.
JAMES A YATES, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:10-cv-01940-DAD-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION AND DENYING
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS THE
COMPLAINT
(Doc. Nos. 89, 109, 118, 120, 136)

Plaintiff Kajauna Kenyatta Irvin is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42

17
18

U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”). The case

19

was removed from state court on October 14, 2010.

20

The matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

21

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On February 8, 2016, the assigned magistrate judge filed findings

22

and recommendations recommending that defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a

23

cognizable claim be denied.1 Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and

24

contained notice that objections thereto were to be filed within thirty days. (Doc. 136.) Plaintiff filed

25

his objections on March 14, 2016. (Doc. 137.) Defendants filed no objections.

26
27
28

1

The findings and recommendations also recommended that a request for judicial notice brought by
plaintiff be denied and that defendants’ motion to strike the declarations submitted by plaintiff in
support of his opposition to defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted.
1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the court has conducted a de

2

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, including plaintiff’s objections, the

3

court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

4

Accordingly:

5

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on February 8, 2016, are adopted in full;

6

2.

Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice is DENIED in part;

7

3.

Defendants’ motion to strike the declarations submitted by plaintiff in support of his
opposition to Defendants’ motion to dismiss is GRANTED;

8
4.

9

Defendants’ motion to dismiss for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief is
DENIED.

10
11
12

IT IS SO ORDERED.

13

Dated:

14

April 7, 2016
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2