Stoops v. Sherman, et al.

Filing 14

ORDER ADOPTING 12 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED, Allowing Action to Proceed on Plaintiff's ADA and Negligence Claims Against Defendant Sherman Only and Dismissing All Other Claims and Defendants signed by District Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 4/11/2017. (Jessen, A)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

RANDY STOOPS,

12
13
14
15

Plaintiff,
v.
STUART SHERMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

16
17
18

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:16-cv-01026-AWI-SAB (PC)
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS AS MODIFIED,
ALLOWING ACTION TO PROCEED ON
PLAINTIFF’S ADA AND NEGLIGENCE
CLAIMS AGAINST DEFENDANT SHERMAN
ONLY AND DISMISSING ALL OTHER CLAIMS
AND DEFENDANTS
[Doc. Nos. 1, 10, 11, 12, 13]

Plaintiff Randy Stoops is appearing pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

19

The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

20

636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 4, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and

21

Recommendations which recommended that this action proceed only on Plaintiff’s claim under the

22

American with Disabilities Act (ADA) against Defendant Stuart Sherman, and all other claims and

23

defendants be dismissed from the action.

24

Plaintiff and contained notice that objections were to be filed within thirty days. On January 13, 2017,

25

Plaintiff filed objections. (Doc. 13.)

The Findings and Recommendations were served on

26

In his objections, Plaintiff indicates that he has complied with the California Government

27

Claims Act with regard to his state law claim of negligence. In the Findings and Recommendations, it

28

was specifically noted that Plaintiff had not pled compliance with the California Government Act, and
1

1

therefore Plaintiff’s state law claim of negligence could not proceed. (Doc. 12, at 7.) Inasmuch as

2

Plaintiff has now properly pled compliance with the California Government Claims Act, Plaintiff has

3

stated a cognizable state law claim of negligence against Defendant Sherman, and this action may

4

therefore proceed on such claim.

5

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), the Court has conducted a de

6

novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and

7

Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

8

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

9

1.

10

modified herein;

11

2.

12
13
14
15
16

The Findings and Recommendations, filed on January 4, 2017, are adopted in full as

This action shall proceed on Plaintiff’s ADA and negligence claims against Defendant

Sherman only;
3.

All other claims and Defendants are dismissed from the action for failure to state a

cognizable claim; and
4.

The matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for initiation of service of

process.

17
18

IT IS SO ORDERED.

19

Dated: April 11, 2017

20

SENIOR DISTRICT JUDGE

21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2