Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05932/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05932-7/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL PADDOCK, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

JEANNE WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-05932-OWW-SMS-P 

ORDER ADOPTING FINDING AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, AND GRANTING

IN PART AND DENYING IN PART

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS

(Docs. 31 and 42)

ORDER DIRECTING DEFENDANTS TO

RESPOND TO COMPLAINT WITHIN

THIRTY DAYS

Plaintiff Michael Paddock (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 72-302.

On September 8, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings

and Recommendations herein which was served on the parties and

which contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within thirty (30)

days. On October 11, 2005, plaintiff filed objections to the

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 47 Filed 11/01/05 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

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

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 September 8,

2005, is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action based on

plaintiff’s failure to exhaust is DENIED on the ground that

plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim is exhausted;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s damages

claims against them in their official capacities on Eleventh

Amendment immunity grounds is GRANTED;

4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss this action based on

plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be

granted under RLUIPA is DENIED; 

5. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s damages

claims against them on qualified immunity grounds is GRANTED; and

6. Defendants shall file a response to plaintiff’s

complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 1, 2005 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05932-OWW -SMS Document 47 Filed 11/01/05 Page 2 of 2