Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00576/USCOURTS-caed-2_13-cv-00576-4/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 550
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Civil Rights (U.S. defendant)
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

WILBER ATCHERLEY, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

J. HANNA, et al., 

Defendants. 

No. 2:13-cv-0576 KJM AC P 

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 26, 2014, 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 twenty-one days. Neither party has filed objections 

to the findings and recommendations. 

 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 

F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 

See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed 

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

the proper analysis. 

Case 2:13-cv-00576-KJM-AC Document 42 Filed 09/30/14 Page 1 of 2
1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

2

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 

 1. The findings and recommendations filed June 26, 2014, are adopted in full; 

 2. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a first amended complaint (ECF No. 28) is denied as 

unnecessary; 

 3. Plaintiff’s motion for service of the first amended complaint (ECF No. 30) is denied as 

moot; 

 4. Defendants’ motion to dismiss (ECF No. 31) the first amended complaint is granted in 

part and denied in part as follows: 

 a. The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s ADA and RA claims against Defendants 

Hanna, Gricewich and Owens in their individual capacities is granted without leave to amend; 

 b. The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s retaliation claim against Defendants Hanna 

and Owens is granted without prejudice; 

 c. The motion to dismiss plaintiff’s requests for monetary damages against 

defendants in their official capacities is granted without leave to amend; 

 d. The motion to dismiss the ADA and RA claims is denied; 

5. Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a second amended complaint (ECF No. 39) is 

granted; 

6. Plaintiff’s motion to compel the CDCR to provide service addresses (ECF No. 36) is 

denied as moot; 

 7. Plaintiff’s motion for judicial notice (ECF No. 37) is denied; and 

 8. Plaintiff’s request for service of the second amended complaint (ECF No. 40) is 

referred back to the magistrate judge. 

DATED: September 29, 2014. 

Case 2:13-cv-00576-KJM-AC Document 42 Filed 09/30/14 Page 2 of 2