Oliver v. Adams et al

Filing 30

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSAL of Certain Claims and Defendants for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief, and REFERRING the Matter Back to the Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process 26 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/21/15. (Hellings, J)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH OLIVER,

12
13

Plaintiff,
v.

14

DARRYL ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00088-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSAL OF
CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR
FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM
FOR RELIEF, AND REFERRING THE MATTER
BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR
INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS
[ECF No. 26]

Plaintiff Kenneth Oliver is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

On May 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was

20

served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the Findings and

21

Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on July 9, 2015.

22

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

23

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

24

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

25

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

26

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on May 8, 2015, are adopted in full; and

27

2.

Plaintiff’s due process and cruel and unusual punishment claims are DISMISSED, with

28

prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief;
1

1

3.

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim under the Religious Land Use and

2

Institutionalized Persons Act against Defendants Cates, Adams, Davis, Fields, Smith, El-Amin,

3

Grannis, Kostecky, and Does Four through Six; Plaintiff’s claim under the First Amendment for

4

violation of the Free Exercise of religion against Defendants Cate, Adams, Davis, Field, Smith, El-

5

Amin, Grannis, Kostecky, and Does Four through Six; Plaintiff’s claim under the First Amendment

6

for violation of the Establishment Clause against Defendants Cate, Adams, Davis, Field, Smith, El-

7

Amin, Grannis, Kostecky, Van Klaverer, and Does Four through Six; and Plaintiff’s claim for

8

violation of the Equal Protection Clause against Defendants Cates, Adams, Davis, Field, Smith, Van

9

Klaverer, El-Amin, Grannis, Kostecky, and Does Four through Six;

10
11
12

4.

All other Defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a cognizable

claim for relief; and
5.

The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill

September 21, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2