(PC) Muhammad v. Komin et al, No. 1:2015cv01373 - Document 31 (E.D. Cal. 2018)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting 29 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/25/2018. (Sant Agata, S)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MAURICE MUHAMMAD, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:15-cv-01373-DAD-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS KOMIN, MITCHELL, (Doc. No. 29) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights 18 action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On January 2, 2018, the assigned magistrate judge re-screened plaintiff’s complaint, 21 recognizing that a recent Ninth Circuit opinion, Williams v. King, 875 F.3d 500 (9th Cir. 2017), 22 had held that a magistrate judge does not have jurisdiction to dismiss claims with prejudice absent 23 the consent of all parties, including not yet appearing defendants, even if the plaintiff has 24 consented to magistrate judge jurisdiction, as plaintiff had here. (Doc. No. 29.) Concurrently, the 25 magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations recommending that all claims, except for 26 plaintiff’s claims against defendants Komin and Mitchell for violation of his rights under the First 27 Amendment and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), be 28 dismissed. (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff was provided an opportunity to file objections to those findings 1 1 and recommendations within fourteen days. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the findings and 2 recommendations and the time for doing so has passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 304, this 4 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 5 undersigned concludes the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 6 analysis. 7 Accordingly: 8 1. The findings and recommendations issued January 2, 2018 (Doc. No. 29) are adopted 9 in full; 10 2. This action shall continue to proceed only on plaintiff’s claim against defendants 11 Komin and Mitchell for violation of his rights under the First Amendment and 12 RLUIPA; 13 3. All other claims are dismissed for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be 14 15 16 17 granted; and 4. This case is referred back to the magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 25, 2018 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.