Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01915/USCOURTS-caed-1_11-cv-01915-4/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

BRENT ADLER,

Plaintiff,

v.

FERNANDO GONZALES, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:11-cv-01915-LJO-MJS

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING 

CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS

(ECF No. 37)

Plaintiff Brent Adler (“Plaintiff”), a former California state prisoner, filed this civil rights 

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 on November 17, 2011. 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 30, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations, 

recommending dismissal of certain of Plaintiff’s claims and defendants. (ECF No. 37.) Plaintiff 

has not filed any objections. 

///

///

///

///

Case 1:11-cv-01915-DAD-MJS Document 38 Filed 08/16/13 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 304, 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 30, 2013, are adopted in full; 

2. This action for damages proceed on Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint against 

Defendants Negrete, Zanchi, Carrasco, Holland, Holmstrom, Gonzalez, 

Steadman, Bryant, Schuyler, Lundy, Stainer, Doe #1, Doe #2, Doe #4, Doe #5, 

and Doe #6 for violating Plaintiff’s rights under the First Amendment and against 

Defendants Gonzales, Holland, Carrasco, Negrete, Steadman, Zanchi, Bryant, 

Lundy, Schuyler, Holmstrom, Doe #1, Doe #2, Doe #4, Doe #5, and Doe #6 for 

violating Plaintiff’s rights under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons 

Act;

3. Plaintiff’s Fourteenth Amendment equal protection claim against Defendants 

Gonzalez, Holland, Carrasco, Negrete, Steadman, Zanchi, Bryant, Lundy, 

Schuyler, Holmstrom, and Does #1-6, be dismissed with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim under § 1983;

4. Plaintiff’s claim for declaratory relief be dismissed, with prejudice, for failure to 

state a claim; and 

5. Defendants Does #3, 7, 8, 9, and 10 be dismissed from this action based on 

Plaintiff’s failure to state any claims against them.

6.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 16, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 7.

8. DEAC_Signature-END:

9.

10. b9ed48bb

Case 1:11-cv-01915-DAD-MJS Document 38 Filed 08/16/13 Page 2 of 2