Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

BARKER v. CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, 2:13-cv-1793 KJM KJN P. (2015)

Court: District Court, E.D. California Number: infdco20150918d35 Visitors: 16
Filed: Sep. 15, 2015
Latest Update: Sep. 15, 2015
Summary: ORDER KIMBERLY J. MUELLER , District Judge . Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On June 25, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations we
More

ORDER

Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On June 25, 2015, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations.

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, 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 by proper analysis.1

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The findings and recommendations filed June 25, 2015 (ECF No. 22) are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's claims under California Unruh Civil Rights Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 51 et seq. and the California Disabled Persons Act, Cal. Civ. Code §§ 54.1 et seq., are dismissed with prejudice;

3. Plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against defendant Mark Green in his official capacity is dismissed with prejudice;

4. Defendants' motion to dismiss (ECF No. 19) is otherwise denied; and

5. Defendants are directed to file an answer to the remaining claims within twenty days of the date of this order.

FootNotes


1. The court corrects a typographical error at page 6, line 1 of the findings and recommendations to reflect that the Norsworthy decision will be published in F.Supp.3d.
Source:  Leagle

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer