Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06721/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06721-10/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

LAMAVIS A. COMUNDOIWILLA,

Plaintiff,

v.

M.S. EVANS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:04-cv-06721-LJO-SKO PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. 33)

Plaintiff Lamavis A. Comundoiwilla (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and

in forma pauperis in this civil rights action 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 April 27, 2010, the Magistrate Judge issued a Findings and Recommendations which

recommended that Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims,

and RLUIPA claims against Defendant Liles be dismissed. (Doc #33.) The Findings and

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objections to

the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30) days of date on which they

were served. Plaintiff has not filed objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 305, this Court

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

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, the Court HEREBY ORDERS that: 

1. The April 27, 2010 Findings and Recommendations are ADOPTED in full;

1

Case 1:04-cv-06721-LJO -BAM Document 37 Filed 06/04/10 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. Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims, Fourteenth Amendment due process claims, and

RLUIPA claims against Defendant Liles are DISMISSED; and

3. Defendant Liles is DISMISSED from this action.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 4, 2010 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:04-cv-06721-LJO -BAM Document 37 Filed 06/04/10 Page 2 of 2