Filed: Apr. 25, 2016
Latest Update: Apr. 25, 2016
Summary: DECISION & ORDER THOMAS J. McAVOY , District Judge . This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1986, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc, alleges that Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights by denying him access to food appropriate to his religion and preventing him participating in religious ceremonies during his incarceration, and by failing to protect him from an assault by a fellow inmate. The
Summary: DECISION & ORDER THOMAS J. McAVOY , District Judge . This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983, 1985 and 1986, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc, alleges that Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights by denying him access to food appropriate to his religion and preventing him participating in religious ceremonies during his incarceration, and by failing to protect him from an assault by a fellow inmate. The a..
More
DECISION & ORDER
THOMAS J. McAVOY, District Judge.
This action, brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985 and 1986, as well as the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, alleges that Defendants violated the Plaintiff's rights by denying him access to food appropriate to his religion and preventing him participating in religious ceremonies during his incarceration, and by failing to protect him from an assault by a fellow inmate. The action was referred to the Hon. David E. Peebles, United States Magistrate Judge, for a Report-Recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Rule 72.3(c).
The Report-Recommendation, dated February 26, 2016, recommends that Defendants' motions for summary judgment be granted in part and denied in part, and that Defendant Glen Schroyer be permitted to file a supplemental motion for summary judgment to address Plaintiff's claims of retaliation. See dkt. # 99. Defendant Schroyer subsequently filed such a motion. See dkt. # 100.
Plaintiff filed objections to the Report-Recommendation. When objections to a magistrate judge's Report-Recommendation are lodged, the Court makes a "de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made." See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). After such a review, the Court may "accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge. The judge may also receive further evidence or recommit the matter to the magistrate judge with instructions." Id.
Having reviewed the record de novo and having considered the issues raised in the Plaintiff's objections, this Court has determined to accept and adopt the recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles for the reasons stated in the Report-Recommendation.
It is therefore
ORDERED that the Plaintiff's objections to the Report-Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Peebles, dkt. # 111, are hereby OVERRULED. The Report-Recommendation, dkt. # 99, is hereby ADOPTED, and:
1. Defendant Schroyer's motion for summary judgment, dkt. # 75, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is denied with respect to Plaintiff's retaliation claims against Plaintiff and GRANTED in all other respects;
2. Defendant Schroyer's second motion for summary judgment is hereby accepted as filed. The Clerk of Court shall refer the motion to Magistrate Judge Peebles for a Report and Recommendation; and
3. The motion of summary judgment of Defendants Bedard, Blaise, Clancy, Laurin, Kinter, Perry, Web and Wingler, dkt. # 77, is hereby GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. The motion is DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's failure-to-protect claim against Defendants Blaise and Clancy and GRANTED in all other respects.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
