Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06409/USCOURTS-caed-1_03-cv-06409-1/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

CARLTON K. HILLMON,

Plaintiff,

vs.

EDWARD S. ALAMEIDA, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:03-cv-06409-REC-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 30)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 25)

Plaintiff, Carlton K. Hillmon (“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 August 23, 2005, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations 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. To date, the parties have not filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations.

//

Case 1:03-cv-06409-AWI -DLB Document 31 Filed 09/29/05 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 August 23,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL; and,

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss, filed January 26, 2005,

is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PARTY as follows:

a. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claims

for damages against defendants in their official capacities is

GRANTED;

b. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s First

Amendment claim is GRANTED;

c. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s claim

under the RLUIPA is DENIED;

d. Defendants are GRANTED qualified immunity as to

plaintiff’s claims for damages against defendants under RLUIPA;

and,

e. This case proceed on plaintiff’s claim for

injunctive relief under RLUIPA.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: September 28, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:03-cv-06409-AWI -DLB Document 31 Filed 09/29/05 Page 2 of 2