Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00212/USCOURTS-caed-1_06-cv-00212-6/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

JOHN McFARLAND,

Plaintiff,

vs.

B. ELLIS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:06-cv-00212-OWW-SMS PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 14)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS, WITHOUT PREJUDICE

(Doc. 13)

Plaintiff John McFarland (“plaintiff”) is a federal prisoner

proceeding pro se in this civil action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §

2000cc-1 (the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Act of 2000 (“RLUIPA”)), and Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents

of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), which

provides a remedy for violation of civil rights by federal

actors. 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 4, 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

Case 1:06-cv-00212-OWW -SMS Document 17 Filed 06/06/07 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

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. On April

20, 2007, plaintiff filed partial objections to the 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 April 4, 2007,

is ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s amended

complaint, filed November 8, 2006, against defendants Ellis,

Wrigley, Cornell, Uzzle, and Nelson for violation of RLUIPA, the

Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment, and the Equal

Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment, arising from

plaintiff’s allegations concerning the November 2005 ceremonial

meal request; and,

3. Plaintiff’s claims involving a request prayer oil which

accrued in the spring of 2006, and a ceremonial meal request

initiated in September of 2006 are DISMISSED, without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 5, 2007 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:06-cv-00212-OWW -SMS Document 17 Filed 06/06/07 Page 2 of 2