(PC) Oliverez v. Aibitre et al, No. 1:2009cv00352 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2011)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 26 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS; ORDER Denying 14 Motion to Dismiss; and Requiring Defendants to File a Response to 7 Amended Complaint Within Thirty Days, signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 1/14/2011. (Response to Amended Complaint due by 2/17/2011.) (Marrujo, C)

Download PDF
(PC) Oliverez v. Aibitre et al Doc. 28 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 LOUIS OLIVEREZ, JR., 10 Plaintiff, 11 12 CASE NO. 1:09-cv-00352-LJO-SMS PC ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DENYING MOTION TO DISMISS, AND REQUIRING DEFENDANTS TO FILE A RESPONSE TO AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN THIRTY DAYS v. BEN ALBITRE, et al., 13 Defendants. (Docs. 14 and 26) 14 / 15 Plaintiff Louis Oliverez, Jr., a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed 16 this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on February 26, 2009. This action is proceeding 17 on Plaintiff’s amended complaint, filed May 7, 2009, against Defendants Albitre and Adams for 18 violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. Plaintiff’s claim arises out of his 19 inability to gain access to his prayer oil for prayer and worship. 20 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 21 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On December 6, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and 22 Recommendations recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss and for failure to exhaust be 23 denied. Objections, if any, were to be filed within thirty days, and none were filed. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 /// 28 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed December 6, 2010, is adopted in full; 3 2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed April 23, 2010, is denied; and 4 3. Defendants shall file a response to Plaintiff’s amended complaint within thirty days. 5 6 IT IS SO ORDERED. 7 Dated: b9ed48 January 14, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.