Solis v. Gonzales

Filing 36

ORDER ADOPTING 35 Findings and Recommendations and GRANTING Defendant's/8 28 Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiff's Retaliation Claim for Failure to Exhaust signed by Chief Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/4/2019. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ROBERT O. SOLIS,

12

Plaintiff,

13

v.

14

R. GONZALES,

15

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00015-LJO-JLT (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY
JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S
RETALIATION CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO
EXHAUST

Defendant.
(Docs. 28, 35)

16
17
18

Plaintiff Robert O. Solis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this

19

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

20

Persons Act (RLUIPA). This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to

21

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

22

On December 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and

23

recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 28), on Plaintiff’s

24

retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 35.) The magistrate judge

25

further recommended that Plaintiff’s free exercise claims under the First Amendment and the

26

RLUIPA be allowed to proceed. (Id.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and

27

recommendations; although, Plaintiff previously filed a statement of non-opposition to

28

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34.)

1

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

2

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings

3

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

4

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

5

1.

6
7

ADOPTED in full;
2.

8
9

The findings and recommendations issued on December 4, 2019, (Doc. 35), are

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim for
failure to exhaust, (Doc. 28), is GRANTED, and

3.

10

Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s free
exercise claims under the First Amendment and the RLUIPA may proceed.

11
12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

/s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____

January 4, 2020

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2