Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01008/USCOURTS-almd-2_12-cv-01008-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FORTHE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA 

NORTHERN DIVISION 

BILLY J. MITCHELL, #207548, ) 

 ) 

 Plaintiff, ) 

 ) 

vs. ) CASE NO. 2:12-cv-1008-WHA 

 ) 

LEEPOSEY DANIELS, et al., ) (WO) 

 ) 

 Defendants. ) 

ORDER

 This case is before the court on the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. #28), 

entered on July 14, 2015, and the Plaintiff’s Objection thereto (Doc. #29), filed on July 29, 2015. 

 Following an independent evaluation and de novo review of the file in this case, the court 

finds the objection to be without merit. The Plaintiff merely repeats his arguments that 

additional security measures should be undertaken in an effort to prevent any desecration of the 

Native American ceremonial grounds and punish anyone caught desecrating the grounds. 

However, the mere fact that the security measures adopted by the Defendants do not prevent all 

actions by inmates who desecrate the grounds in violation of institutional rules does not amount 

to a violation of the Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment. The court agrees with the 

Magistrate Judge’s finding that the record is devoid of evidence that the Defendants acted in an 

intentionally discriminatory manner and that the policies or procedures governing use of the 

Native American ceremonial grounds has significantly interfered or substantially burdened the 

Plaintiff’s ability to engage in the free exercise of his religion in violation of his First 

Amendment rights. Therefore, it is hereby ORDERED as follows: 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-WHA-WC Document 30 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
 1. The Plaintiff’s objection is OVERRULED. 

 2. The court ADOPTS the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 

 3. The Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 

 4. Judgment is GRANTED in favor of the Defendants, and this case is DISMISSED with 

prejudice. 

 5. Costs are taxed against the Plaintiff. 

 DONE this 18th day of August, 2015. 

 /s/ W. Harold Albritton 

 W. HAROLD ALBRITTON 

 SENIOR UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

Case 2:12-cv-01008-WHA-WC Document 30 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2