(PC) King v. Valley State Prison et al, No. 1:2020cv00024 - Document 15 (E.D. Cal. 2021)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 14 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 7/27/2021. (Sant Agata, S)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) King v. Valley State Prison et al Doc. 15 Case 1:20-cv-00024-DAD-GSA Document 15 Filed 07/28/21 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALTON KING, 12 13 14 15 No. 1:20-cv-00024-DAD-GSA (PC) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS VALLEY STATE PRISON, et al., (Doc. No. 14) Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Alton King is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States 19 Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On May 24, 2021, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and recommendations, 21 recommending that this action proceed only against defendants Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr. and 22 Culinary Staff Member Moosebaur for alleged violations of the Religious Land Use and 23 Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) and alleged violations of the First Amendment Free 24 Exercise Clause; and against defendant Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr. for alleged unconstitutional 25 conditions of confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for alleged failure to protect 26 plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment. (Doc. No. 14.) The pending findings and 27 recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections thereto were 28 to be filed within fourteen (14) days from the date of service. (Id. at 3.) To date, no objections to 1 Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:20-cv-00024-DAD-GSA Document 15 Filed 07/28/21 Page 2 of 2 1 the findings and recommendations have been filed with the court, and the time in which to do so 2 has now passed. 3 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 4 de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings 5 and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, 7 1. 8 9 The findings and recommendations issued on May 24, 2021 (Doc. No. 14) are adopted in full; 2. This action proceeds only on plaintiff’s claims against defendants Warden Raythel 10 Fisher, Jr. and Culinary Staff Member Moosebaur for alleged violations of the 11 RLUIPA and alleged violations of the First Amendment Free Exercise Clause; and 12 against defendant Warden Raythel Fisher, Jr. for alleged adverse conditions of 13 confinement in violation of the Eighth Amendment and for alleged failure to 14 protect plaintiff in violation of the Eighth Amendment; 15 3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 16 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 17 18 19 20 proceedings consistent with this order. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: July 27, 2021 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
