Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Jones v. Hall, 5:18-cv-46. (2019)

Court: District Court, S.D. Georgia Number: infdco20190819661 Visitors: 15
Filed: Aug. 14, 2019
Latest Update: Aug. 14, 2019
Summary: ORDER LISA GODBEY WOOD , District Judge . After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Dkt, No. 14. In that Report, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff alleged non-frivolous retaliation and free exercise claims against Defendants Smith and Porter. Id. at pp. 9-12. However, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief and for compensatory and pu
More

ORDER

After an independent and de novo review of the entire record, the undersigned concurs with the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. Dkt, No. 14. In that Report, the Magistrate Judge found Plaintiff alleged non-frivolous retaliation and free exercise claims against Defendants Smith and Porter. Id. at pp. 9-12. However, the Magistrate Judge recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiff's request for declaratory relief and for compensatory and punitive damages. The Magistrate Judge also recommended dismissal as to Plaintiff's equal protection, due process, and Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act ("RLUIPA"), 42 U.S.C. § 2000CC et seq., claims and as to Defendants Hall and Stone entirely. Id. at pp. 5-9, 12-19.

No party to this case has filed Objections. Accordingly, the Court ADOPTS the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, dkt. no. 14, as the opinion of the Court. Plaintiff's free exercise and retaliation claims against Defendants Smith and Porter shall proceed. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's equal protection, due process, and RLUIPA claims. The Court DISMISSES Defendants Hall and Stone from this action. The Court DISMISSES Plaintiff's request for compensatory damages, punitive damages, and declaratory relief. The Court DENIES Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal as to these dismissed claims.

While the Court mailed a copy of the Report and Recommendation to Plaintiff at his last known address, on July 15, 2019, the post office returned that copy to the Court with the notations "unable to forward" and "return to sender" stamped on the envelope. Dkt. No. 16. The Court has previously instructed Plaintiff on the importance of updating his address with the Court, cautioning that "[f]ailure to do so will result in the dismissal of this case, without prejudice." Dkt. No. 8, p. 3. Nevertheless, Plaintiff failed to do so, and the Court is unable to proceed with this action without proper contact information for Plaintiff. Thus, in addition to adopting the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, the Court ORDERS Plaintiff, within 14 days of this Order, to either show cause, in writing, as to why he failed to update his address with the Court, or, alternatively, update his mailing address with the Court. Plaintiff is forewarned that failure to follow the terms of this Order will result in the dismissal of his case without prejudice.

SO ORDERED.

Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer