(PC) Wallace v. California Department of Corrections & Rehabilitation et al

Filing 27

ORDER ADOPTING 22 Findings and Recommendations signed by District Judge Dale A. Drozd on 1/8/2021. (Sant Agata, S)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

WILLIAM JAMES WALLACE, II,

12
13
14
15
16

No. 1:20-cv-00905-NONE-JLT (PC)

Plaintiff,
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS

v.
CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS AND
REHABILITATION, et al.,

(Doc. No. 22)

Defendants.

17
18

Plaintiff William James Wallace is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma

19

pauperis in this civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United

20

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

21

On October 22, 2020, the assigned magistrate judge issued a screening order, finding that

22

plaintiff’s complaint states cognizable claims against Defendant California Department of

23

Corrections and Rehabilitation (“CDCR”) and Defendants J. Ourique and S. Smith in their

24

official capacities for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”). (Doc. No. 20).

25

The magistrate judge directed plaintiff, within 21 days, to file a first amended complaint curing

26

the deficiencies in his pleading or to notify the court of his desire to proceed only on the claims

27

found cognizable. (Id. at 1, 10-11.) On November 17, 2020, plaintiff filed a “motion to proceed

28

on claims found cognizable by this Court.” (Doc. No. 21.)

1

Accordingly, on November 20, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and

2

recommendations, recommending that (1) Defendants Krzysiak, Merritt, and Sherman be

3

dismissed and (2) the claims in plaintiff’s complaint be dismissed, except for its ADA claims

4

against Defendant CDCR and Defendants Ourique and Smith in their official capacities. (Doc.

5

No. 22.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and provided him 14 days

6

to file objections thereto. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff has not filed any objections and the time to do so

7

has passed.

8
9
10
11
12

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a
de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and
recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis.
Accordingly,
1.

13

The findings and recommendations issued on November 20, 2020 (Doc. No. 22)
are adopted in full;

14

2.

Defendants Krzysiak, Merritt, and Sherman are dismissed;

15

3.

The claims in plaintiff’s complaint are dismissed, except for the ADA claims

16

against Defendants CDCR and Defendants Ourique and Smith in their official

17

capacities; and,

18

4.

This case is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

January 8, 2021
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2