Coleman v. Romanowski, 18-13171. (2020)
Court: District Court, E.D. Michigan
Number: infdco20200214d30
Visitors: 5
Filed: Feb. 13, 2020
Latest Update: Feb. 13, 2020
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE NOVEMBER 25, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [45]; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PETITION [42] ARTHUR J. TARNOW , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Deon Coleman brought this suit on October 11, 2018. [Dkt. # 1]. He filed an Amended Complaint [15] on April 4, 2019. He alleges that he was deprived of the halal diet required by his religious beliefs, in violation of the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. 2
Summary: ORDER ADOPTING THE NOVEMBER 25, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [45]; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PETITION [42] ARTHUR J. TARNOW , Senior District Judge . Plaintiff Deon Coleman brought this suit on October 11, 2018. [Dkt. # 1]. He filed an Amended Complaint [15] on April 4, 2019. He alleges that he was deprived of the halal diet required by his religious beliefs, in violation of the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. 20..
More
ORDER ADOPTING THE NOVEMBER 25, 2019 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION [45]; AND DENYING PLAINTIFF'S PETITION [42]
ARTHUR J. TARNOW, Senior District Judge.
Plaintiff Deon Coleman brought this suit on October 11, 2018. [Dkt. # 1]. He filed an Amended Complaint [15] on April 4, 2019. He alleges that he was deprived of the halal diet required by his religious beliefs, in violation of the United States Constitution and the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-1(a). (Dkt. 15, Am. Compl.). He argues that his parole was revoked because he could not eat the food provided to him at the Detroit Reentry Center while he was undergoing substance abuse treatment. (Id.).
All pretrial matters in this case have been referred to Magistrate Judge Anthony P. Patti. On November 4, 2019, Plaintiff filed a Petition [42] for injunctive relief against the Detroit Reentry Center. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") [45] on this petition on November 25, 2019. The Magistrate Judge advised the Court that Plaintiff is not entitled to injunctive relief against the Detroit Reentry Center, because he no longer resides there and may never reside there again. No objections to the R&R were filed.
Having reviewed the record, the November 25, 2019 Report and Recommendation [45] is hereby ADOPTED and entered as the findings and conclusions of the Court.
IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Petition [42] is DENIED.
SO ORDERED.
Source: Leagle