LUDY v. NELSON et al

Filing 31

ORDER ADOPTING 15 Report and Recommendations except as to its finding that Horne should be dismissed from this action. Fields and Fountain are DISMISSED as parties to this action. The Plaintiff's remaining claims shall go forward. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 5/15/2014. (tlh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
MITCHELL LAVERN LUDY,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
CYNTHIA NELSON, et al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)
________________________________)

CIVIL ACTION NO. 5:14-CV-73 (MTT)

ORDER
This matter is before the Court on the Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Charles H. Weigle. (Doc. 15). After screening the complaint pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the Magistrate Judge recommends allowing the Plaintiff’s
RLUIPA claims to go forward as to all of the Defendants except for Defendants Danny
Horne, Shevondah Fields, and Lisa Fountain. The Magistrate Judge recommends
dismissing Horne because the Plaintiff failed to state any claims against him. The
Magistrate Judge further recommends dismissing Fields and Fountain because the only
facts alleged against them are regarding their denials of the Plaintiff’s grievances, and
the mere denial of a grievance is insufficient to impose liability pursuant to 42 U.S.C.
§ 1983. The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommendation. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1), the Court has considered the Plaintiff’s objections and has made a de novo
determination of the portions of the Recommendation to which the Plaintiff objects.

In his objection, the Plaintiff provides new facts that are sufficient to allow him to
proceed with his claim against Horne. The Plaintiff now alleges: (i) in February 2013,
Horne recommended Aleph Institute provide t h e Plaintiff with Passover meals (Doc.
21 at 1, 18); (ii) the Plaintiff “refused to use” Aleph Institute and Horne “refused to
address the issue” (Doc. 21 at 2, 13, 16); (iii) Horne was aware that Aleph Institute
would not service the Plaintiff due to “difference[s] in belief,” but Horne “refused to
address the issue” (Doc. 21 at 2, 15); and (iv) the Plaintiff was eventually allowed to
order meals from a different vendor, Gleiberman’s, in March 2014 (Doc. 21 at 2).
It is not clear from t h e Plaintiff’s objection whether he refused to purchase
meals from Aleph Institute, a mainstream Jewish organization, or whether Aleph
Institute instead refused to deal with t h e Plaintiff, a Black Hebrew Israelite. It is
also unclear whether Horne was made aware of the differences between the
Hebrew Israelite religion and mainstream Judaism and of the potential for friction
between the two groups.1 Because these inquiries are fact-based and highly
relevant to t h e Plaintiff’s claims and because t h e Plaintiff’s pleadings, liberally
construed, now allege that Horne failed to find an alternative religious vendor for
over a year, the Plaintiff will be allowed to proceed with his claim against Horne.
However, the Plaintiff has not presented any new facts warranting a change in
the Recommendation to dismiss Fields and Fountain. The Plaintiff merely alleges
that they denied his grievances and failed to investigate his claims. As stated in the
Recommendation, these allegations are insufficient to support a cognizable claim
pursuant to § 1983.

1

The Hebrew Israelite religion differs from mainstream Judaism, and mainstream Jews do not
generally recognize Black Hebrew Israelites as being “Jewish.”

2

The Court has reviewed the Recommendation, and the Recommendation is
adopted and made the order of this Court except as to its finding that Horne should be
dismissed from this action. Fields and Fountain are DISMISSED as parties to this
action. The Plaintiff’s remaining claims shall go forward.

SO ORDERED, this the 15th day of May, 2014.
S/ Marc T. Treadwell
MARC T. TREADWELL, JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3