England v. State of Nevada et al

Filing 39

ORDER Granting 29 Motion for Summary Judgment. Signed by Judge Philip M. Pro on 8/6/2012. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - SLR)

1
2
3
4
5

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

6

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

7
8

WILLIAM L. ENGLAND,
#25105

9

Plaintiff,

10
11

vs.

12

HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,

13

Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

2:11-cv-00140-PMP-PAL
ORDER

14
15

Before the Court for consideration is Defendants’ fully briefed Motion for

16

Summary Judgment (Doc. #29) filed June 15, 2012. For the reasons set forth in

17

Defendants’ Motion and Reply Memorandum (Doc. #37), the Court finds that

18

Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. #29) must be granted.

19

Specifically, this Court’s Screening Order (Doc. #8) entered March 23, 2011,

20

permitted Plaintiff to proceed on only the “First Amendment, Fourteenth Amendment

21

in RLUIPA Claims against Defendant Skolnik, Burson, Williams and Cox” set forth

22

in Count II of Plaintiff’s Complaint. After a full opportunity to do so, Plaintiff has

23

not set forth evidence demonstrating that Defendants Skolnik, Burson, Williams or

24

Cox were personally involved in any of the events that formed the basis for Plaintiff’s

25

alleged violation of his First Amendment free exercise of religion, Fourteenth

26

Amendment equal protection, or RLUIPA claims. Moreover, the record does not

27

support a finding that any of the named Defendants knowingly violated a clearly

1

established constitutional right in connection with the allegations in Plaintiff’s

2

Complaint.

3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary

4

Judgment (Doc. #29) is GRANTED and that the Clerk of Court shall forthwith enter

5

judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff.

6

DATED: August 6, 2012.

7
8
9
10

PHILIP M. PRO
United States District Judge

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2