Filing 19

ORDER affirming and adopting Report and Recommended Decision re 10 Screening Complaint Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), 1915A. By JUDGE NANCY TORRESEN. (MMB)

Download PDF
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MAINE DANIEL ONEIL RUFFIN, Plaintiff, v. JOHN HINKLEY, et al., Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Civil No. 2:17-CV-151-NT ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE On May 30, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copy to the Plaintiff, his Recommended Decision after a preliminary review of the Plaintiff’s Complaint under 28 U.S.C.§ 1915. Recommended Decision (ECF No. 10). The Plaintiff filed an objection to the Recommended Decision on June 12, 2017 (ECF No. 12). I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision. I concur with the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge and I will affirm the Recommended Decision in all respects. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby AFFIRMED. I DISMISS the Plaintiff’s diet-related free exercise and RLUIPA claims, and the Plaintiff’s due process claim, but permit Plaintiff to proceed on his claims based on the denial of religious items and the denial of minimum security housing. Therefore, I DISMISS the Plaintiff’s claims against the Defendants Warren Heat, Heidi Norweg, David Palmer, and Bruce Sheaff, SO ORDERED. /s/ Nancy Torresen__________________ United States Chief District Judge Dated this 6th day of July, 2017 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?