Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01384/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-01384-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Federal Question: Bivens Act

---

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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OTIS HARRIS,

Plaintiff,

vs.

BERNIE ELLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-01384-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 10)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Otis Harris (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1, the Religious Land Use and

Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”). The matter was

referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28

U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On April 17, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

Recommendations herein which was served on plaintiff and which

contained notice to plaintiff that any objection to the Findings

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. To date,

plaintiff has not filed any objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:06-cv-01384-FRZ Document 15 Filed 06/14/07 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. §

636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, 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, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed April 17, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed October 26, 2006, against defendants Ellis and

Uzzle for violation of RLUIPA;

3. Plaintiff’s First and Fourteenth Amendment claims are

DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to state a claim upon

which relief may be granted; and,

4. Defendants Wrigley, Cooper, and Cornell are DISMISSED

based on plaintiff’s failure to state any claims upon which

relief may be granted against them.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 14, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-01384-FRZ Document 15 Filed 06/14/07 Page 2 of 2