(PC) Adler v. Gonzalez et al, No. 1:2011cv01915 - Document 62 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 59 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS to Grant Defendants' 49 Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and Motion to Dismiss signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 11/03/2014. (Flores, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Adler v. Gonzalez et al Doc. 62 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 BRENT ADLER, Plaintiff, 13 14 15 Case No. 1:11-cv-1915-LJO-MJS (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO GRANT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND MOTION TO DISMISS v. F. GONZALEZ, et al., Defendants. 16 (ECF Nos. 49, 59) CASE TO REMAIN OPEN 17 18 Plaintiff is a former state prisoner who initiated this civil rights action pro se and in 19 forma pauperis on November 17, 2011. (ECF No. 1.) The matter was referred to a 20 United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 21 302 of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Plaintiff 22 since has been released from prison and obtained counsel. (ECF Nos. 36 & 51.) 23 On October 14, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued findings and 24 recommendations to grant Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and motion 25 to dismiss. (ECF No. 59.) Plaintiff did not object to the findings and recommendations 26 and the time for doing so has expired. 27 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has 28 Dockets.Justia.com 1 conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 2 Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 3 proper analysis. 4 Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that: 1. The Court adopts the findings and recommendations filed on October 14, 5 2014 (ECF No. 59), in full; 6 2. Defendants’ motion for partial summary judgment and to dismiss (ECF No. 7 49), filed on July 21, 2014, is GRANTED; 8 9 3. Summary judgment is granted in favor of Defendants on Plaintiff’s First 10 Amendment claims, with the exception of his claims that he was denied 11 group programs and services, visits to the chapel, and meetings with a 12 spiritual advisor; 4. Plaintiff’s claims brought pursuant to the Religious Land Use and 13 Institutionalized Persons Act are HEREBY DISMISSED; 14 15 5. Defendant Holmstrom is HEREBY DISMISSED; and 16 6. The case shall remain open for further proceedings on Plaintiff’s remaining 17 18 19 First Amendment claims. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill November 3, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.