Filed: Feb. 13, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2018
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 302. On January 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recomm
Summary: ORDER MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR. , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 302. On January 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recomme..
More
ORDER
MORRISON C. ENGLAND, JR., District Judge.
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, 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 302.
On January 22, 2018, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Neither party has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
The court has reviewed the file and finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate judge's analysis. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed January 22, 2018, are adopted in full;
2. Plaintiff's motion to file a supplemental complaint (ECF No. 78) is denied; and
3. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 77) is granted as to the claim that defendant Scotland conspired to violate plaintiff's right to practice his religion in violation of the Bane Act; defendants' motion is denied in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
