Oliver v. Adams et al

Filing 61

ORDER Adopting 54 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART and DENYING IN PART Defendants' 37 Motion to Dismiss, and DENYING Plaintiff's 50 Motion to File an Amended Complaint signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 2/3/2017. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

KENNETH OLIVER,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

DARRYL ADAMS, et al.,

15

Defendants.

16

Case No.: 1:14-cv-00088-LJO-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING IN PART
AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANTS’
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND DENYING
PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO FILE AN AMENDED
COMPLAINT
[ECF Nos. 37, 50, 54]

Plaintiff Kenneth Oliver is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action

17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.
The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

19
20

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 22, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

21

Recommendations recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss be granted in part and denied in

22

part and Plaintiff’s motion to amend the complaint be denied. The Findings and Recommendations

23

were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. The

24

thirty day time frame has expired and no objections were filed.

25

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

26

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

27

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

28

///
1

1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

2

1.

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on December 22, 2016, are adopted in full;

3

2.

Defendants’ motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part as follows:
a. Denied as to dismissal of Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory and injunctive relief

4

based on policy of CDCR;

5

b. Granted as to dismissal of all claims for monetary damages against Defendants in

6

their official capacities;

7

c. Granted as to dismissal of monetary damages against all Defendants under

8

RLUIPA;

9
d.

10
11

3.

Denied for dismissal as barred by the statute of limitations; and

Plaintiff’s motion to amend should is denied as futile.

12
13
14
15

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

February 3, 2017

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2