Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05365/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-05365-6/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

MANGO WATTS, 

Plaintiff,

vs.

DIRECTOR OF CORRECTIONS,

et al.,

Defendants. 

 /

1:03-cv-05365-OWW-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION (Doc. 69)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 53)

Plaintiff, Mango Watts (“plaintiff”), a state prisoner

proceeding in forma pauperis and represented by counsel, 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 August 10, 2006, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendation herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On August 24, 2006, defendants filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendation.

Case 1:03-cv-05365-OWW -DLB Document 72 Filed 09/19/06 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 Recommendation to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendation, filed August 10, 2006,

are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, filed August

17, 2005, is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of

plaintiff’s First Amendment Claim is GRANTED;

b. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication of

plaintiff’s Equal Protection claim and RLUIPA claim is DENIED;

c. Defendants’ motion for summary adjudication based

upon qualified immunity as to plaintiff’s claims for damages is

GRANTED; and,

d. Because plaintiff’s claim for injunctive relief

prohibiting defendants from enforcing the grooming standards is

MOOT in light of the modification to the grooming regulations,

this case shall proceed only on plaintiff’s request for an

injunction mandating expungement from plaintiff’s central file of

disciplinary reports relating to non-compliance with the grooming

standards.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 16, 2006 /s/ Oliver W. Wanger 

emm0d6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-05365-OWW -DLB Document 72 Filed 09/19/06 Page 2 of 2