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)

Download PDF
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

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?