Stevens v. Skolnik et al

Filing 133

ORDER adopting and accepting 123 Report and Recommendation. 104 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART; 111 Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. Please see attached for specific details. Signed by Chief Judge Robert C. Jones on 3/14/13. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JC)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

6
7

COUNTRY STEVENS,

8

3:09-CV-00227-RCJ-WGC

Plaintiff,
ORDER

9

v.

10

HOWARD SKOLNIK, et al.,

11

Defendants.
______________________________________

12
13

Before the Court is the Report and Recommendation (#123) entered on November 30, 2011.

14

Defendants filed Objections to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#125) on December

15

20, 2011.

16

The Court has conducted it’s de novo review in this case, has fully considered the objections of

17

the Plaintiffs, the pleadings and memoranda of the parties and other relevant matters of record pursuant

18

to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule IB 3-2. The district court may accept, reject, or modify in

19

whole or in part, the findings and recommendations made by the magistrate judge. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).

20

The Court determines that the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (#123) entered on

21

November 30, 2011 is adopted and accepted.

22
23

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Summary
Judgment (#111) is DENIED.

24

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ 12(b) Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Exhaust

25

Administrative Remedies (#104) is GRANTED in PART and DENIED in PART.

26

///

27

///

28

///

1
2
3

Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (#104) are GRANTED and the following claims are DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE:
1.

4

Plaintiff’s claim that he is precluded from participating in numerous Native American
ceremonies;

5

2.

Plaintiff’s claim that his ability to pray was inhibited;

6

3.

Plaintiff’S claim regarding the preparation and adequacy of food for ceremonial meals;

7

4.

Plaintiff’s claim that he was denied the ability to wear religious headgear in the culinary,

8

yard or living units;

9

5.

Plaintiff’s claims that he was denied the ability to burn herbs in his living area;

10

6.

Plaintiff’s claims that the use of religious land is subject to Defendants’ arbitrary

11

schedule, and that he is precluded from using a separate plot of ground for solitary

12

practice of his religion; and

13

7.

14

Plaintiff’s claim that Defendants interfered with his ability to order religious books,
papers and music.

15

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (#104) is DENIED as follows:

16

1.

Plaintiff’s claim that he was precluded from possessing certain religious items;

17

2.

Plaintiff’s claim that he was discriminated against based on his religion; and

18

3.

Plaintiff’s claims concerning the conduct of Senior Correctional Officer James Bauman.

19

IT IS SO ORDERED.

20

Dated: This 14th day of March, 2013.

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

_____________________________________
ROBERT C. JONES
UNITED STATES DISTRICT CHIEF JUDGE