Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00015/USCOURTS-caed-1_18-cv-00015-5/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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ROBERT O. SOLIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

R. GONZALES,

Defendant.

Case No.: 1:18-cv-00015-LJO-JLT (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND GRANTING

DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY 

JUDGMENT ON PLAINTIFF’S

RETALIATION CLAIM FOR FAILURE TO 

EXHAUST

(Docs. 28, 35)

Plaintiff Robert O. Solis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 

civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 

Persons Act (RLUIPA). This matter was referred to a United States magistrate judge pursuant to 

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

On December 4, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations to grant Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, (Doc. 28), on Plaintiff’s 

retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies. (Doc. 35.) The magistrate judge 

further recommended that Plaintiff’s free exercise claims under the First Amendment and the 

RLUIPA be allowed to proceed. (Id.) Neither party has filed objections to the findings and 

recommendations; although, Plaintiff previously filed a statement of non-opposition to 

Defendant’s motion for summary judgment. (Doc. 34.)

Case 1:18-cv-00015-DAD-JLT Document 36 Filed 01/06/20 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), 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 proper analysis.

Accordingly, the Court ORDERS:

1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 4, 2019, (Doc. 35), are

ADOPTED in full;

2. Defendant’s motion for summary judgment on Plaintiff’s retaliation claim for 

failure to exhaust, (Doc. 28), is GRANTED, and

3. Plaintiff’s retaliation claim is DISMISSED without prejudice. Plaintiff’s free 

exercise claims under the First Amendment and the RLUIPA may proceed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 4, 2020 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill _____ 

UNITED STATES CHIEF DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:18-cv-00015-DAD-JLT Document 36 Filed 01/06/20 Page 2 of 2