UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS ABILENE DIVISION EDGAR HERNANDEZ, Institutional ID No. 02109665 SID No. 07990638 Plaintiff, v. No. 1:19-CV-00239-H BOBBY LUMPKIN, DIRECTOR TDCLCID;' Defendant. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation (FCR) that this case should proceed and the Court should enter a scheduling order as to Plaintiff's claim for injunctive relief under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA). See 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, et seq. (Dkt. No. 34.) No objections were filed. The District Court has reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the Court accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, and recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court notes that in his Answer, Defendant Lumpkin asserted several affirmative defenses—including his right to qualified immunity. (See Dkt. No. 23.) Ordinarily, once the affirmative defense of qualified immunity has been raised, the Court would enter a scheduling order limited to that issue. However, the Court declines to limit the scheduling

' All other Defendants and claims were dismissed from this suit by order and judgment entered on August 29, 2022. (Dkt. No. 31.) So, the caption of this case reflects that Bobby Lumpkin, in his official capacity as Director of the TDCJ-CID is the only remaining defendant in this case.

order at this time because Plaintiff seeks only injunctive relief under RLUIPA and “qualified immunity applies only to claims for money damages.” See Waller v. Hanlon,

(Sth Cir. 2019) (citing Morgan v. Swanson,

, 365 n.3 (5th Cir. 2011). As a result, the Court will enter a separate scheduling order, setting forth dates for pretrial deadlines and filing dispositive motions. So ordered. Dated October “t20722.

JAMES WESLEY HENDRIX United States District Judge /

;