TYLER v. GADDY

Filing 6

ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE WILLIAM L. OSTEEN, JR on 02/03/2016; that the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (Doc. 3 ) is ADOPTED with the additional ruling that Plaintiff's claim for a violation of his First Amendment rights is al so dismissed without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action be, and is hereby, dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint in the state courts, correcting the defects set out in the Order and Recommendation. A Judgment dismissing this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. (Garland, Leah)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

CASEY RAFEAL TYLER,
Plaintiff,
v.
SGT. GADDY,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

1:15CV1011

ORDER
This matter is before this court for review of the
Recommendation (“Recommendation”) filed on December 1, 2015, by
the Magistrate Judge in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
(Doc. 3.)

In the Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge

recommends that Plaintiff’s Complaint be dismissed without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint in the state courts
(Doc. 2).

The Recommendation was served on the parties to this

action on December 1, 2015 (Doc. 4).

Plaintiff timely filed

objections (Doc. 5) to the Recommendation.
This court is required to Amake a de novo determination of
those portions of the [Magistrate Judge=s] report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.@
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

This court Amay accept, reject, or

modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations

made by the [M]agistrate [J]udge. . . . [O]r recommit the matter
to the [M]agistrate [J]udge with instructions.@

Id.

This court has appropriately reviewed the portions of the
Recommendation to which objections were made and has made a
de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate
Judge’s Recommendation.

This court therefore adopts the

Recommendation with the following additional analysis.
The Magistrate Judge dismissed Plaintiff’s claim without
prejudice, finding that Plaintiff’s claim for conversion was
properly brought in state court, and that “[n]o other potential
claim [was] apparent in the Complaint.” (See Recommendation
(Doc. 3) at 1.)

Plaintiff objected, arguing that his Complaint

stated a claim for religious “harassment” in violation of his
First Amendment rights, a claim that the Magistrate Judge did
not address. (See Pl.’s Objs. (Doc. 5) at 1.) This court writes
only to note that this claim will be dismissed as well.
Plaintiff alleges that he suffered religious harassment
when his “Rasta Crown,” which is a type of religious headgear
related to the Rastafarian religion, was taken from him in
violation of his First Amendment rights. (See Complaint (Doc. 2)
at 4.)1

However, Plaintiff alleges in the same paragraph that he

All citations in this Order to documents filed with the
court refer to the page numbers located at the bottom right-hand
corner of the documents as they appear on CM/ECF.
1

- 2 -

informed Defendant that he did not practice the Rastafarian
religion. (Id.) Further, it appears that the religion that
Plaintiff is on record as practicing is Judaism. (See Doc. 2-3.)
Given these facts, Plaintiff has failed to state a violation of
his First Amendment rights, as he is not a practitioner of the
Rastafarian religion and, as such, did not have any religious
rights violated by the taking of his “Rasta Crown.” Plaintiff’s
remaining allegations amount to a claim for conversion which, as
the Magistrate Judge noted, is properly brought in state court.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge’s
Recommendation (Doc. 3) is ADOPTED with the additional ruling
that Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of his First Amendment
rights is also dismissed without prejudice.

IT IS FURTHER

ORDERED that this action be, and is hereby, dismissed without
prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint in the state
courts, correcting the defects set out in the Order and
Recommendation. A Judgment dismissing this action will be
entered contemporaneously with this Order.
This the 3rd day of February, 2016.

______________________________________
United States District Judge

- 3 -