Opinion
CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06721-LJO-SMS PC
10-13-2011
LAMAVIS A. COMUNDOIWILLA, Plaintiff, v. M. S. EVANS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING
CERTAIN DEFENDANTS AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS AS MOOT
(ECF No. 63)
THIRTY DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1 (Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA")). This action was filed on December 17, 2004. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On August 24, 2011, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and recommendations recommending dismissing certain defendants for failure to state a claim and denying Defendants' motion to dismiss as moot. The parties were given thirty days within which to file objections, and none were filed.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations, filed August 24, 2011, are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed on the third amended complaint, filed May 20, 2011, against Defendants Doe One, Doe Two, and Doe Three, the unidentified hearing officers that conducted the hearings on December 10, 2004, January 25, 2005, and February 25, 2005;
3. Defendants Cate, Alameida, and Woodford are dismissed from this action, with prejudice, for Plaintiff's failure to state any claims against them under section 1983;
4. Defendants Alameida and Woodford's motion to dismiss, filed June 9, 2011, is DENIED as moot; and
5. Within thirty days for the service of this order Plaintiff shall provide the Court with additional information to identify the Doe Defendants to assist the Marshal in serving the hearing officers who conducted the hearings on December 10, 2004, January 25, 2005, and February 25, 2005; and
6. Failure to comply with this order will result in this action being dismissed for failure to comply with an order of the Court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Lawrence J. O'Neill
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE