Tamayo v. Fisher et al

Filing 16

ORDER Adopting 15 Findings and Recommendations; ORDER for this Action to Proceed with the First Amended Complaint, on Plaintiff's Claims Against Defendants Fisher, Reeves, Myers, and Duke for Violation of Plaintiff's Religious Rights Under Rluipa and the First Amendement, and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants from this Action for Failure to State a Claim, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 5/27/15. Farkas Terminated. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7
8
9

ANGEL TAMAYO,
Plaintiff,

10

vs.

11
12

R. FISHER, JR., et al.,
Defendants.

13
14
15
16
17

1:12-cv-00510-LJO-GSA-PC
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS
(Doc. 15.)
ORDER FOR THIS ACTION TO
PROCEED WITH THE FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT, ON PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
AGAINST DEFENDANTS FISHER,
REVEES, MYERS, AND DUKE FOR
VIOLATION OF PLANTIFF’S RELIGIOUS
RIGHTS UNDER RLUIPA AND THE
FIRST AMENDMENT, AND DISMISSING
ALL OTHER CLAIMS AND
DEFENDANTS FROM THIS ACTION FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

18

Angel Tamayo (“Plaintiff”) is a former state prisoner proceeding pro se with this civil

19

rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States

20

Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On April 9, 2015, the Court entered Findings and Recommendations, recommending

22

that this action proceed with the First Amended Complaint filed on June 25, 2014, on Plaintiff=s

23

RLUIPA and First Amendment claims against defendants Fisher, Revees, Myers, and Duke for

24

violation of Plaintiff’s rights to practice his religion, and that all other claims and defendants be

25

dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff=s failure to state a claim. (Doc. 15.) Plaintiff was

26

provided an opportunity to file objections to the Findings and Recommendations within thirty

27

days.

28

Recommendations.

To date, Plaintiff has not filed objections or otherwise responded to the Findings and

1

1

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636 (b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this

2

Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file,

3

the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and proper

4

analysis.

5

Accordingly, THE COURT HEREBY ORDERS that:

6

1.

7
8

The Findings and Recommendations issued by the Magistrate Judge on April 9,
2015, are ADOPTED in full;

2.

This action now proceeds on Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint, filed on June

9

25, 2014, on Plaintiff=s RLUIPA and First Amendment claims against

10

defendants Fisher, Revees, Myers, and Duke, for violation of Plaintiff’s rights to

11

practice his religion;

12

3.

All remaining claims and defendants are DISMISSED from this action;

13

4.

Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claims are dismissed from this action based on
Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under § 1983;

14
15

5.

16
17

state any claims against him;
6.

The Clerk of Court is directed to reflect the dismissal of defendant Farkas on the
court’s docket; and

18
19

Defendant Farkas is dismissed from this action based on Plaintiff’s failure to

7.

20

This case is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings,
including initiation of service of process.

21
22
23

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

May 27, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
27
28
2