(PC) Hodges v. Sharon, et al., No. 1:2013cv00654 - Document 28 (E.D. Cal. 2014)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 27 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING Plaintiff's Claim for Monetary Damages Under RULIPA, and REFERRING Matter back to Magistrate Judge for further Proceedings signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 12/1/2014. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 TYRE’ID O.I. HODGES, 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 JERALD SHARON, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 Case No.: 1:13-cv-00654-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S CLAIM FOR MONETARY DAMAGES UNDER RULIPA, AND REFERRING MATTER BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR FURTHER PROCEEDINGS [ECF No. 27] Plaintiff Tyre’Id O.I. Hodges is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. On October 22, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendation 19 20 recommending that Defendants’ motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages under the 21 Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA) be granted. The Findings and 22 Recommendations were served on the parties and contained notice that objections were to file within 23 thirty days. No objections 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 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on October 22, 2014, is adopted in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s claim for monetary damages under the RLUIPA is DISMISSED; and 4 3. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 5 6 7 8 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill December 1, 2014 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.