(PC-G) Guy v. Mims et al, No. 1:2011cv00721 - Document 20 (E.D. Cal. 2013)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS and DISMISSING Certain Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 12/3/2013. Margret Mims (Sheriff) terminated. (Jessen, A)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 PATRICK EDWARD GUY, Case No. 1:11-cv-00721 AWI-DLB PC 9 Plaintiff, 10 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 11 MARGARET MIMS, et al., (Document 16) 12 Defendants. 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 Plaintiff Patrick Edward Guy (“Plaintiff”) is an inmate in the custody of the Fresno County Jail. Plaintiff is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action filed on May 5, 2011. On February 25, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Second Amended Complaint. 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 October 18, 2013, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that this action proceed against Defendants Ashmore, LeFors and Kurtze for violations of the free exercise clause of the First Amendment and violation of RLUIPA. The Court further recommended that Defendant Mims be dismissed. The Findings and Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections were to be filed within thirty days. Over thirty days have passed and Plaintiff has not filed objections. 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 that the Findings and Recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 28 1 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed October 18, 2013, are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. This action SHALL proceed on Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint against 4 Defendants Ashmore, LeFors and Kurtze for violations of the free exercise clause of 5 the First Amendment and violation of RLUIPA; and 6 3. Defendant Mims IS DISMISSED from this action. 7 8 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: December 3, 2013 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE 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.