Ross v. David et al
Filing
55
ORDER signed by District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 8/13/2011 ORDERING that the 42 findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2011, are adopted. Defendants' 27 motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's 33 motion for summary judgment is DENIED. Judgment shall be entered in favor of the moving defendants. This action shall proceed as to defendant David only.(Duong, D)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
ALEX K. ROSS,
No. CIV S-09-0984-KJM-CMK-P
Plaintiff,
12
13
vs.
14
A. DAVID, et al.,
15
16
17
ORDER
Defendants.
/
Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action
18
seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate
19
Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.
20
On February 11, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,
21
which were served on the parties and which contained notice to the parties that any objections to
22
the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has timely
23
filed objections to the findings and recommendations.
24
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule
25
304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,
26
the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the
1
1
proper analysis, with one exception. The findings and recommendations recommend that this
2
action be closed. However, after issuing the findings and recommendations, the magistrate judge
3
granted plaintiff’s request to attempt to re-serve defendant David. As such, it is not appropriate
4
to close this case at this time. Instead, judgment will be entered as to the moving defendants,
5
and this action will continue as to defendant David only.
6
The court notes that in his objections, plaintiff claims that this action was filed
7
under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and 42 U.S.C. § 12102, the Americans With Disabilities Act, and that
8
his complaint shows, among other things, that defendants were “uncaring as to his medical needs
9
for an accommodation under the American’s [sic] with Disabilities Act. ECF No. 45 at 2.
10
Plaintiff did attach a copy of a request for a modification or accommodation under the ADA as
11
an exhibit, but did not refer to the ADA in the body of the complaint. Compare ECF No. 1 at
12
17 (ADA request) and id. at 1 (“this is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983”; “this is a
13
claim for named damages and injunctive relief brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983"). In addition,
14
in his screening order, the magistrate judge found only that the complaint appeared to state a
15
cognizable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. ECF No. 7 at 2. This court thus declines to consider
16
any ADA claims plaintiff is attempting to raise in his objections. Jones v. Blanas, 393 F.3d 918,
17
935 (9th Cir. 2004).
18
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
19
1.
The findings and recommendations filed February 11, 2011, are adopted;
20
2.
Defendants’ motion for summary judgment (Doc. 27) is granted;
21
3.
Plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment (Doc. 33) is denied;
22
4.
Judgment shall be entered in favor of the moving defendants; and
23
5.
This action shall proceed as to defendant David only.
24
DATED: August 13, 2011.
25
26
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?