Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01142/USCOURTS-caed-1_19-cv-01142-3/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

CHARLES L. DAVIS,

Plaintiff,

v.

JESSE MENDOZA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 1:19-cv-01142-DAD-EPG (PC)

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS

(Doc. No. 9)

Plaintiff Charles Lake Davis is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in 

this civil rights action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This matter was referred to a United 

States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302.

On November 5, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge screened plaintiff’s complaint and 

found that plaintiff had stated cognizable claims against defendant Department of Adult Parole 

Operations in Hanford, California for violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the 

Rehabilitation Act, but that he had failed to state any other cognizable claims against any other

named defendants. (Doc. No. 7.) Plaintiff was granted leave to file an amended complaint or 

notify the court of his willingness to proceed only on the claims found to be cognizable in the 

screening order within thirty days after service of the screening order. (Id. at 9.) On November 

14, 2019, plaintiff notified the court that he was willing to proceed only on the claims identified 

by the magistrate judge in the screening order as cognizable. (Doc. No. 8.)

Case 1:19-cv-01142-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 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

Consequently, on November 20, 2019, the assigned magistrate judge issued findings and 

recommendations, recommending that this action proceed on plaintiff’s claims brought against 

defendant Department of Adult Parole Operations in Hanford, California for violation of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. (Doc. No. 9 at 2.) The magistrate 

judge also recommended that all other claims brought and defendants named by plaintiff in his 

complaint be dismissed. (Id.) The findings and recommendations were served on plaintiff and 

contained notice that any objections thereto were to be filed within fourteen (14) days after 

service. (Id.) No objections have been filed and the time in which to do so has now passed. 

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this court has conducted a 

de novo review of the case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court concludes that the 

findings and recommendations are supported by the record and proper analysis. 

Accordingly, 

1. The findings and recommendations issued on November 20, 2019 (Doc. No. 9) are 

adopted in full;

2. This action shall proceed on plaintiff’s claims against defendant Department of 

Adult Parole Operations in Hanford, California for violation of the Americans with 

Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act;

3. All other claims and defendants are dismissed; and 

4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 

proceedings consistent with this order. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:19-cv-01142-DAD-EPG Document 17 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2