Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06584/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-06584-5/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-REC-DLB-P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 23)

ORDER GRANTING IN PART MOTION

TO DISMISS (Doc. 14)

ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF LEAVE

TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT

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 November 22, 2005, 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 December 8, 2005, defendants filed objections to the

Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations. On December 14,

2005, plaintiff filed objections to the Magistrate Judge’s

Findings and Recommendations.

Case 1:04-cv-06584-LJO -DLB Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 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. With regard

to defendants’ objections that plaintiff did not exhaust his ADA

claim prior to filing suit and that the Complaint does not allege

an ADA claim against defendant Woodford, because these

contentions were made for the first time in the objections, the

court does not address them at this time. If appropriate upon

the filing of the amended complaint, defendants may raise these

issues in a subsequent motion to dismiss.

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed November 22,

2005, are ADOPTED IN FULL;

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

claim is GRANTED;

3. Plaintiff file an amended complaint, curing the

deficiencies previously identified, within twenty (20) days from

the date of service of this order; and,

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

their individual capacities is GRANTED without leave to amend.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: February 10, 2006 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-06584-LJO -DLB Document 32 Filed 02/13/06 Page 2 of 2