Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00184/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00184-3/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

1

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SHAKLA JOSEPH,

Plaintiff,

vs.

J.S. WOODFORD, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:05-cv-00184-AWI-SMS-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 16)

ORDER DISMISSING CERTAIN

CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

Plaintiff Shakla Joseph (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, has filed this civil

rights action seeking relief under 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 72-302.

On June 16, 2006, 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

and Recommendations was to be filed within thirty days. To date,

plaintiff has not filed an objection to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:05-cv-00184-LJO-SMS Document 17 Filed 09/18/06 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) 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 June 16, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. This action proceed on plaintiff’s amended complaint,

filed December 7, 2005, against defendants Daviega, Pursell,

Hooker, Fulks, Anderson, Flore, and Adams on plaintiff’s RLUIPA

claim;

3. Defendants Schwarzenegger, Woodford, and Hickman, and

the State of California, and the California Department of

Corrections and Rehabilitation to the extent they are defendants,

are DISMISSED from this action on the ground that they are not

persons within the meaning of section 1983; and,

4. Plaintiff’s claims for declaratory relief and an

injunction prohibiting enforcement of the grooming regulation are

DISMISSED as MOOT.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Anthony W. Ishii 

0m8i78 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:05-cv-00184-LJO-SMS Document 17 Filed 09/18/06 Page 2 of 2