(PC) Oliver v. Adams et al, No. 1:2014cv00088 - Document 30 (E.D. Cal. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSAL of Certain Claims and Defendants for Failure to State a Cognizable Claim for Relief, and REFERRING the Matter Back to the Magistrate Judge for Initiation of Service of Process 26 , signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on 9/21/15. (Hellings, J)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KENNETH OLIVER, 12 13 Plaintiff, v. 14 DARRYL ADAMS, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: 1:14-cv-00088-LJO-SAB (PC) ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A COGNIZABLE CLAIM FOR RELIEF, AND REFERRING THE MATTER BACK TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS [ECF No. 26] Plaintiff Kenneth Oliver is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 19 On May 8, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations which was 20 served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that objections to the Findings and 21 Recommendations were to be filed within thirty days. Plaintiff filed objections on July 9, 2015. 22 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de 23 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 24 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 25 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 26 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed on May 8, 2015, are adopted in full; and 27 2. Plaintiff’s due process and cruel and unusual punishment claims are DISMISSED, with 28 prejudice, for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; 1 1 3. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s claim under the Religious Land Use and 2 Institutionalized Persons Act against Defendants Cates, Adams, Davis, Fields, Smith, El-Amin, 3 Grannis, Kostecky, and Does Four through Six; Plaintiff’s claim under the First Amendment for 4 violation of the Free Exercise of religion against Defendants Cate, Adams, Davis, Field, Smith, El- 5 Amin, Grannis, Kostecky, and Does Four through Six; Plaintiff’s claim under the First Amendment 6 for violation of the Establishment Clause against Defendants Cate, Adams, Davis, Field, Smith, El- 7 Amin, Grannis, Kostecky, Van Klaverer, and Does Four through Six; and Plaintiff’s claim for 8 violation of the Equal Protection Clause against Defendants Cates, Adams, Davis, Field, Smith, Van 9 Klaverer, El-Amin, Grannis, Kostecky, and Does Four through Six; 10 11 12 4. All other Defendants are DISMISSED from the action for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and 5. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 13 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill September 21, 2015 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
