Hodges v. Sharon, et al.
Filing
32
ORDER OVERRULING Plaintiff's Objections to Findings and Recommendation, ADOPTED IN FULL on December 2, 2014 signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/6/2014. (Sant Agata, S)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
TYRE’ID O.I. HODGES,
12
13
Plaintiff,
v.
14
JERALD SHARON, et al.,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
19
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Case No.: 1:13-cv-00654-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFF’S
OBJECTIONS TO FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATION, ADOPTED IN FULL ON
DECEMBER 2, 2014
[ECF Nos. 29, 30]
Plaintiff Tyre’Id O.I. Hodges is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights
action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
On October 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation
20
recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages under the
21
Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) be granted. The Findings and
22
Recommendation was served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to file within
23
thirty days. No objections were filed during that window.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court conducted a de novo
25
review of this case, and the Findings and Recommendation was adopted in full on December 2, 2014.
26
(ECF No. 29.)
27
28
1
1
On December 3, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation.
2
However, under the prison mailbox rule, a pleading filed by a pro se prisoner is deemed to be filed as
3
of the date the prisoner delivered the pleading to prison authorities for mailing, not the date on which
4
the pleading may have been received by the court. See Anthony v. Cambra, 236 F.3d 568, 574-575
5
(9th Cir. 2000). Plaintiff states he mailed the objections to the Court on November 21, 2014. (ECF
6
No. 30 at 6.) Thus, the Court considers that date to be the date of filing.
7
The Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s objections and finds there is no basis to modify the Court’s
8
December 2, 2014, adopting the Findings and Recommendation in full. Accordingly, Plaintiff’s
9
objections, deemed filed November 21, 2014, are OVERRULED.
10
11
12
13
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:
/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill
December 6, 2014
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?