Opinion
1:19-cv-00034-DAD-SKO (PC)
07-18-2021
ANDRE L. REVIS, Plaintiff, v. STU SHERMAN, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
(DOC. NO. 29)
Plaintiff Andre L. Revis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
On May 21, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff's third amended complaint and issued findings and recommendations, recommending that plaintiff's third amended complaint be allowed to proceed only on plaintiff's claims brought against defendants Moore, Alvarez, Guembe, and Shieffer for alleged violations of the First Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act “RLUIPA”), and that all other claims be dismissed due to plaintiff's failure to state a cognizable claim. (Doc. No. 29.) The assigned magistrate judge additionally recommended that the granting of further leave to amend would be futile given that plaintiff had received three prior opportunities to do so but plaintiff had failed to cure the deficiencies identified by the magistrate judge. (Id. at 7.) The pending findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within twenty-one (21) days after service. (Id. at 7-8.) To date, no objections to the findings and recommendations have been filed, and the time in which to do so has now passed.
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 proper analysis.
Accordingly, 1. The findings and recommendations issued on May 21, 2021, (Doc. No. 29), are adopted in full;
2. This action shall proceed only on plaintiffs third amended complaint, filed May 6, 2020 (Doc. No. 23), against defendants Moore, Alvarez, Guembe, and Shieffer for alleged violations of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and for alleged violation of RLUIPA; and, 3. All other claims are dismissed from this action for failure to state a claim because the granting of further leave to amend would be futile; and
4. Defendant Corral is dismissed from this action;
5. This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings consistent with this order.
IT IS SO ORDERED.