(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)

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?