Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-01935-11/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

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

Plaintiff Lonnie Lee Poslof, Sr. is appearing pro se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 

U.S.C. § 1983. 

On December 3, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendation which was 

served on Plaintiff and contained notice that Objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to 

be filed within twenty days. 

Plaintiff filed objections on December 3, 2014. Local Rule 304(b).

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the 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 on December 3, 2014 is adopted in full; and

LONNIE LEE POSLOF, Sr.,

 Plaintiff,

v.

CDCR, et al.,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

Case No.: 1:13-cv-01935-AWI-SAB (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 

PLAINTIFF’S THIRD AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

DISMISSING PLAINTIFF’S EIGHTH 

AMENDMENT CLAIM OF DELIBERATE 

INDIFFERENCE, AND REFERRING MATTER 

BACK TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE FOR 

INITIATION OF SERVICE OF PROCESS

[ECF Nos. 28, 29] 

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 33 Filed 01/13/15 Page 1 of 2
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. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s RLUIPA claim against Defendant Beard and 

Does 1 through 10;

3. Plaintiff’s Eighth Amendment claim of deliberate indifference to a serious medical 

need is DISMISSED for failure to state a cognizable claim for relief; and

4. The matter is referred back to the Magistrate Judge for initiation of service of process. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 12, 2015 

 SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-01935-DAD-SAB Document 33 Filed 01/13/15 Page 2 of 2