Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00396/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-00396-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DYRELL WAYNE JONES,

Plaintiff,

v.

C. PFEIFFER, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-00396-DAD-JDP

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS 

(Doc. No. 20)

Plaintiff Dyrell Wayne Jones is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis

in this civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 

On June 27, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s first amended 

complaint and found that he had stated the following cognizable claims against defendants 

Walinga and Pitchford: (1) Free Exercise claims, (2) claims brought under the Religious Land 

Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), and (3) Equal Protection claims. (Doc. No. 

18.) The magistrate judge also found that plaintiff’s first amended complaint failed to state any 

other cognizable claim against any other defendant. (Id. at 7.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file 

a second amended complaint, notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims 

found to be cognizable in the screening order, or stand on his first amended complaint subject to 

dismissal of claims and defendants. (Id. at 8–9.) On July 12, 2019, plaintiff notified the court of

Case 1:19-cv-00396-ADA-HBK Document 29 Filed 01/16/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable by the magistrate judge in 

the screening order. (Doc. No. 19.) 

Consequently, on August 2, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s Free Exercise, RLUIPA, 

and Equal Protection claims against defendants Walinga and Pitchford. (Doc. No. 20.) The 

magistrate judge recommended that all other claims and defendants be dismissed. (Id. at 2.) The 

findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and contained notice that any objections 

thereto were to be filed within fourteen days after service. (Id.) No objections have been filed 

and the time in which to do so has now passed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 

court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the 

court concludes that the findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper 

analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on August 2, 2019 (Doc. No. 20) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s Free Exercise, RLUIPA, and Equal Protection 

claims against defendants Walinga and Pitchford;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed for failure to state cognizable claims for 

relief; and 

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings 

consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-00396-ADA-HBK Document 29 Filed 01/16/20 Page 2 of 2