Tenison v. Byrd et al

Filing 54

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Honorable Robin J. Cauthron on 01/23/2019. (wh)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
DAMEA SHANDALE TENISON,
Plaintiff,
vs.
RAYMOND BYRD, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CIV-17-1265-C

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This civil rights action brought by a prisoner, proceeding pro se, was referred to United
States Magistrate Judge Shon T. Erwin, consistent with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B).
Judge Erwin entered a Report and Recommendation on December 28, 2018, to which Plaintiff has
timely objected. The Court therefore considers the matter de novo.
The facts and law are accurately set out in Judge Ewin’s Report and Recommendation and
there is no purpose to be served in repeating them yet again. In his objection, Plaintiff merely
restates the conclusions and legal arguments originally asserted, and raises no issue not fully and
accurately addressed and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.
Accordingly, the Court adopts, in its entirety, the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge, and for the reasons announced therein, orders as follows:
(1) Plaintiff’s First Amendment religious diet and right to pray claims and Equal Protection
right to pray claims asserted against Defendants Byrd, McGhee, Fox, and White in their official
capacities seeking monetary damages are dismissed without prejudice;
(2) Plaintiff’s First Amendment and Equal Protection right to pray claims asserted against
Defendants Byrd, McGhee, Fox, and White in their individual capacities seeking injunctive relief
are dismissed with prejudice;

(3) Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims asserted against Defendants Byrd, McGhee, Fox, and White
in their individual and official capacities seeking monetary relief and in their individual capacities
seeking injunctive relief are dismissed with prejudice;
(4) summary judgment is granted to Defendants Byrd, McGhee, Fox, and White in their
individual capacities for monetary damages on Plaintiff’s First Amendment religious diet claim;
(5) summary judgment is granted to Defendants Byrd, McGhee, Fox, and White in their
individual capacities for monetary damages and their official capacities for injunctive relief on
Plaintiff’s First Amendment right to pray claim;
(6) summary judgment is granted to Defendants Byrd, McGhee, White, and Fox in their
individual capacities for monetary damages and their official capacities for injunctive relief on
Plaintiff’s Equal Protection right to pray claim;
(7) summary judgment is granted to Defendants Byrd, McGhee, White and Fox in their
official capacities for injunctive relief on Plaintiff’s RLUIPA right to pray claim; and
(8) summary judgment is granted to Defendants Byrd and Paine in their individual
and official capacities for monetary damages and injunctive relief on Plaintiff’s Eighth
Amendment claim. Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment is denied as moot.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 23rd day of January, 2018.

2