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