WARNER v. PATTERSON, 2:08-cv-519. (2013)
Court: District Court, D. Utah
Number: infdco20130827h57
Visitors: 23
Filed: Aug. 26, 2013
Latest Update: Aug. 26, 2013
Summary: ORDER TENA CAMPBELL, District Judge. On August 22, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Danny Lee Warner, Jr. (Docket Nos. 81 & 95). The Tenth Circuit found that Mr. Warner's claims 1 under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42, U.S.C. 2000cc-2(a), were moot because he left the custody of the Utah Department of Corrections. So, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to this c
Summary: ORDER TENA CAMPBELL, District Judge. On August 22, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Danny Lee Warner, Jr. (Docket Nos. 81 & 95). The Tenth Circuit found that Mr. Warner's claims 1 under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42, U.S.C. 2000cc-2(a), were moot because he left the custody of the Utah Department of Corrections. So, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to this co..
More
ORDER
TENA CAMPBELL, District Judge.
On August 22, 2013, the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals vacated this court's orders granting summary judgment in favor of Plaintiff Danny Lee Warner, Jr. (Docket Nos. 81 & 95). The Tenth Circuit found that Mr. Warner's claims1 under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42, U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(a), were moot because he left the custody of the Utah Department of Corrections. So, the Tenth Circuit remanded the case to this court for final dismissal. See Order, Warner v. Patterson, No. 12-4171 (10th Cir. Aug. 22, 2013).
For the same reasons set forth in the Tenth Circuit's Order, the court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over Mr. Warner's RLUIPA claims, and those claims are HEREBY dismissed. Because there are no remaining claims, the court directs the Clerk of the Court to close the case.
SO ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. A claim for having been denied the use of break-the-fast boxes during a religious holiday period, and a claim for having been denied access to certain religious publications.
Source: Leagle
