From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Uhuru v. Hart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Western Division
Oct 27, 2009
CV 07-07361-JVS (VBK) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2009)

Summary

requiring prisoner to remove his religious head covering on one occasion was not a substantial burden on his religious practice

Summary of this case from Vincent v. Stewart

Opinion


DIALLO E. UHURU, Plaintiff, v. P. HART, et al., Defendants. No. CV 07-07361-JVS (VBK) United States District Court, C.D. California, Western Division. October 27, 2009

          ORDER (1) ACCEPTING AND ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE, AND (2) GRANTING DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS/ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND DISMISSING THE COMPLAINT

         /b>

          JAMES V. SELNA, District Judge.

         Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint and all other papers along with the attached Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and has made a de novo determination of the Report and Recommendation.

         IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that a Judgment be entered (1) approving and adopting the Report and Recommendation, (2) granting Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings/Motion for Summary Judgment; and (3) dismissing Plaintiff's Complaint and the action with prejudice.


Summaries of

Uhuru v. Hart

United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Western Division
Oct 27, 2009
CV 07-07361-JVS (VBK) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2009)

requiring prisoner to remove his religious head covering on one occasion was not a substantial burden on his religious practice

Summary of this case from Vincent v. Stewart

dismissing First Amendment claim because the plaintiff could not prove that his sincerely held religious beliefs were substantially burdened when he was required to remove his religious head covering on one occasion

Summary of this case from Thomas v. Delaney

requiring prisoner to remove his religious head covering on one occasion was not a substantial burden on his religious practice

Summary of this case from Pennick v. Dehaven
Case details for

Uhuru v. Hart

Case Details

Full title:DIALLO E. UHURU, Plaintiff, v. P. HART, et al., Defendants.

Court:United States District Court, Ninth Circuit, California, C.D. California, Western Division

Date published: Oct 27, 2009

Citations

CV 07-07361-JVS (VBK) (C.D. Cal. Oct. 27, 2009)

Citing Cases

Vincent v. Stewart

"[I]ncidental effects of government programs, which may make it more difficult to practice certain religions…

Thomas v. Delaney

Thomas does not explain why this "interference" was "more than an inconvenience" or a substantial burden on…