Filed: Jul. 28, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 28, 2017
Summary: ORDER YVETTE KANE , District Judge . THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: Before the Court is the June 21, 2017 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. No. 128), recommending that the Court grant Defendants' second motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 68.) In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff's subsequent transfer to the Administrative Maximum Fa
Summary: ORDER YVETTE KANE , District Judge . THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: Before the Court is the June 21, 2017 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. No. 128), recommending that the Court grant Defendants' second motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 68.) In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff's subsequent transfer to the Administrative Maximum Fac..
More
ORDER
YVETTE KANE, District Judge.
THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS:
Before the Court is the June 21, 2017 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Carlson (Doc. No. 128), recommending that the Court grant Defendants' second motion to dismiss and for summary judgment. (Doc. No. 68.) In his Report and Recommendation, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends granting Defendants' motion to dismiss on the basis that Plaintiff's subsequent transfer to the Administrative Maximum Facility in Florence, Colorado from the United States Penitentiary at Lewisburg, Pennsylvania ("USP-Lewisburg"), renders moot his claims for injunctive relief stemming from Defendants' alleged failure to adequately accommodate his religious dietary requirements in adherence to his professed belief in Judaism. Furthermore, Magistrate Judge Carlson recommends entering summary judgment in Defendants favor on qualified immunity grounds as to Plaintiff's constitutional and statutory claims for damages predicated on Defendants' brief suspension of Plaintiff's religious diet due to his possession or consumption of non-Kosher food products, and failure to provide Plaintiff with 4.5 ounces of sacramental grape juice per Sabbath meal, for a total of 13.5 ounces per day. (Doc. No. 128.)
Plaintiff has filed objections to the Report and Recommendation, wherein he principally argues that he has presented sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact regarding the proper amount of sacramental grape juice that should be provided to Plaintiff to meet his professed religious dietary demands. (Doc. No. 131.) Specifically, Plaintiff challenges Defendants' failure to comply with the section of the Bureau of Prison's ("BOP") guide to religious practice in prison pertaining to Judaism (id.), a copy of which Plaintiff submits as an exhibit to his objections. (Doc. No. 132.) According to Plaintiff, his receipt of a 6.75 ounce carton of Kosher grape juice per day contravenes the BOP's best practices manual, which explains that the "Kiddush is normally recited while holding a full cup of Kosher grape juice (about 4.5 ounces)." (Id. at 6.) Plaintiff also contests Defendants' stated penological interest in apportioning only 6.75 ounces of grape juice to Plaintiff per day and their position that 6.75 ounces of grape juice is sufficient to perform Sabbath services. (Id.) Finally, Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Carlson's sua sponte application of the qualified immunity doctrine to dismiss his constitutional and statutory religious freedom claims against Defendants, noting that Defendants did not raise the qualified immunity defense in connection with their presently pending dispositive motion. (Id. at 8.)
Having thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff's objections in conjunction with Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation, the Court finds that Magistrate Judge Carlson correctly and comprehensively resolved the substance of Plaintiff's objections in the Report and Recommendation itself by virtue of having found that the complete defense of qualified immunity, raised for the first time in Defendants' answer to the complaint, warranted the entry of summary judgment in favor of Defendants.1 Thus, the Court will not write separately to address Plaintiff's objections and will adopt Magistrate Judge Carlson's Report and Recommendation in its entirety.
ACCORDINGLY, on this 28th day of July 2017, upon independent review of the record and the applicable law, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 128), of Magistrate Judge Carlson;
2. Defendants' second motion to dismiss and for summary judgment (Doc. No. 68), is GRANTED; and
3. The Clerk is directed to enter judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff, and to CLOSE this case.