Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01913/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01913-2/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

MICHAEL CARMICHAEL,

Plaintiff,

vs.

M. AGUILAR, et al., 

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

1:12cv01913 LJO DLB PC

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS

(Document 14)

Plaintiff Michael Carmichael (“Plaintiff”), a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in 

forma pauperis, filed this civil rights action on November 26, 2012. He filed a First Amended 

Complaint on June 10, 2013. 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 January 9, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations that 

certain claims be dismissed without leave to amend for failure to state a claim. The Findings and 

Recommendations were served on Plaintiff and contained notice that any objections must be 

filed within thirty days. Plaintiff did not file objections.

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.

Case 1:12-cv-01913-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 02/21/14 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

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 9, 2014, are adopted in full; 

2. This action proceed on the following cognizable claims: (1) violation of the First 

Amendment against Defendants Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and Marshall; (2) 

violation of RLUIPA against Defendants Aguilar, Meyer, Pressley, Wilson and 

Marshall; and (3) violation of the Fourteenth Amendment against Defendants 

Meyer, Pressley and Marshall; and

3. All other claims ARE DISMISSED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 21, 2014 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01913-LJO-DLB Document 18 Filed 02/21/14 Page 2 of 2