Quezada v. Cate et al

Filing 13

ORDER Adopting 12 Findings and Recommendations for Dismissal of Certain of Plaintiff's Claims and Defendants, signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 5/11/15. (Gonzalez, R)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8
9
ALVARO QUEZADA,

CASE NO. 1:13-cv-00960-AWI-MJS (PC)

10
Plaintiff,

11
12
13
14

v.
MATTHEW CATES, et al.,

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR DISMISSAL
OF CERTAIN OF PLAINTIFF’S CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS
(ECF No. 12)

Defendants.

15

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil

16

rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. (ECF Nos. 1 & 7.) The matter was

17

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and

18

Local Rule 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California.

19

On April 17, 2015, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations

20

(ECF No. 12) that (1) Plaintiff should proceed on the First Amendment free exercise of

21

religion, Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, and RLUIPA claims against

22

Defendant Smith, and (2) all other claims asserted in the Complaint and all other named

23

Defendants should be dismissed.

24

Recommendations and the time for doing so has passed.

25
26
27
28

Plaintiff did not object to the Findings and

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has
conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10

Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by
proper analysis.
Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 12), filed on April 17, 2015, are
adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff is to proceed on the First Amendment free exercise of religion,
Fourteenth Amendment equal protection, and RLUIPA claims against
Defendant Smith; and
3. All other claims asserted in the Complaint and all other named Defendants are
dismissed with prejudice.

11
12
13
14

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: May 11, 2015
SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

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

2