Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252/USCOURTS-caed-1_09-cv-01252-8/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

MICHAEL MOOTRY,

Plaintiff,

v.

E. G. FLORES, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

CASE NO. 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS, DISMISSING

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS 

(ECF Nos. 61, 62)

TWENTY DAY DEADLINE

Plaintiff Michael Mootry (“Plaintiff”) is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 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 302.

On May 16, 2012, the Magistrate Judge screened Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint,

and issued a Findings and Recommendations recommending dismissal of certain claims and

defendants from this action. The undersigned has reviewed Plaintiff’s Objection, filed on June 12,

2012.

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 by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed May 16, 2012, is adopted in full; 

2. This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s second amended complaint, filed May 1,

2012, against Defendants Hedgpeth, Flores, Wegman, Lewis, and Cabrera for

1

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 63 Filed 06/14/12 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

violations of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment for the denial of

Jumu’ah services;

3. Defendants Billings and Tarnoff are dismissed from this action, with prejudice, for

Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim under section 1983;

4. Plaintiff’s claims based upon denial of prayer oil and the failure to provide a Muslim

chaplain or inmate chaplain are dismissed, with prejudice, based upon Plaintiff’s

failure to state a claim under section 1983;

5. Plaintiff’s access to the court and equal protection claims are dismissed, with

prejudice, for Plaintiff’s failure to state a claim; 

6. Defendants shall file a responsive pleading within twenty days from the date of

service of this order; and

7. This action is referred back to the Magistrate Judge.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 13, 2012 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2

Case 1:09-cv-01252-LJO-BAM Document 63 Filed 06/14/12 Page 2 of 2