Burns v. Dage et al

Filing 10

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 3/23/2012 ADOPTING 7 Findings and Recommendations; DISMISSING all claims and defendants except Plaintiff's § 1983 claim against Defendant Williams based on retaliation; TERMINATING Defendants Peter Hansen, Jonathan Sheldon, Starbucks Corporation, James Kenneth Troehler, Kelly Ann Troehler, Chris Westergaard, City of Redding and Chris Dage. (Michel, G)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

DWAYNE B. BURNS,

11

Plaintiff,

12
13
14

vs.

ORDER

CHRIS DAGE, et al.,
Defendants.
/

15
16

No. CIV S-11-0217-KJM-CMK

Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action alleging, among other

17

things, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., as

18

well as violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United

19

States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules.

20

On August 15, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations,

21

which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections

22

within a specified time. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.

23

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule

24

304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file,

25

the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the

26

proper analysis.
1

1

Plaintiff reasserts in his objections that the magistrate judge failed to fully account

2

for his argument that, because of his facial disfigurement, he is “regarded as” having a disability

3

under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 12101 et seq. (See ECF 8.) Plaintiff

4

appears to seek reconsideration of an order already reconsidered and ruled upon by the preceding

5

district judge. (See ECF 7.) The court considers the earlier ruling as the law of the case and

6

declines to reexamine the issue. See One Industries, LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc., 578

7

F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2009) (“the district court had an adequate opportunity to rule, and

8

actually did rule, on the []issue, making it the ‘law of the case’ and not subject to reopening”).

9

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

10
11
12

1.

The findings and recommendations filed August 15, 2011, are adopted in

2.

All claims and defendants are dismissed except plaintiff’s § 1983 claim

full; and

13

against defendant Williams based on retaliation.

14

DATED: March 23, 2012.

15
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
2