Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06584/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06584-8/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

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CAMERON HOOKER,

Plaintiff,

vs.

D. ADAMS, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

1:04-cv-06584-LJO-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 42)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND

DENYING IN PART MOTION TO

DISMISS (Doc. 35)

Plaintiff, Cameron Hooker (“plaintiff”), is a state prisoner

proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights

action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to

a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 72-302.

On January 22, 2007, the Magistrate Judge filed Findings and

Recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which

contained notice to the parties that any objections to the

Findings and Recommendations were to be filed within twenty (20)

days. On February 6, 2007, plaintiff filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. On February 9,

2007, defendants filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-06584-LJO -DLB Document 46 Filed 03/08/07 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

In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C.

§ 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 73-305, this Court has conducted a

de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the

entire file, the Court finds the Findings and Recommendations to

be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed January 22,

2007, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

2. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s due process

claim is GRANTED;

3. Defendants’ motion to dismiss plaintiff’s ADA claim

against defendants is DENIED; and,

4. Defendants file a response to plaintiff’s amended

complaint within thirty (30) days from the date of service of

this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: March 7, 2007 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill 

b9ed48 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06584-LJO -DLB Document 46 Filed 03/08/07 Page 2 of 2