Todd v. California Department of Corrections and Rehabilition et al

Filing 88

ORDER ADOPTING 84 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS IN FULL and ORDER DENYING 66 Plaintiff's Motion for the Immediate Recognition of Creativity as a Religion for First Amendment and RLUIPA Purposes signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 9/26/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

MICHAEL ANTHONY TODD,

12

No. 1:12-cv-01003-DAD-BAM

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

D.J. RUIZ et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR IMMEDIATE
RECOGNITION OF CREATIVITY AS A
RELIGION FOR FIRST AMENDMENT AND
RLUIPA PURPOSES
(Doc. Nos. 66, 84)

17
18
19
20

Plaintiff Michael Anthony Todd is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

21

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On September 1, 2017, the assigned

22

magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that plaintiff’s motion for

23

immediate recognition of Creativity as a religion for purposes of the First Amendment and

24

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) be denied. (Doc. No. 84.)

25

Those findings and recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that any

26

objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen days of service. (Id.) Plaintiff filed his

27

objections on September 11, 2017. (Doc. No. 85.)

28

/////
1

1

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

2

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

3

objections, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and

4

by proper analysis. In his objections, plaintiff contends that the court has failed to perform

5

established tests to determine whether a belief or movement invokes constitutionally cognizable

6

religious interests. (Doc. No. 85 at 2.) Plaintiff has not identified any purported error in the

7

magistrate judge’s analysis, and the court finds no basis to deviate from the findings and

8

recommendations.

9
10

Accordingly,
1. The September 1, 2017 findings and recommendations (Doc. No. 85) are adopted in

11
12

full;
2. Plaintiff’s motion for the immediate recognition of Creativity as a religion for First

13
14

Amendment and RLUIPA purposes (Doc. No. 66) is denied; and
3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings

15
16
17

consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

September 26, 2017
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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