Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05215/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05215-3/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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

)

DAVID BROWN, )

)

Plaintiff, )

)

v. )

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

 CORRECTIONS, et al., )

) 

Defendants. )

____________________________________)

CV F- 04- 5215 REC DLB P 

CORRECTION TO FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATION RE

DISMISSAL OF ACTION

Plaintiff is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis with a civil rights action

pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983. On August 4, 2005, this Court issued a recommendation finding 

that:

1. Plaintiff’s claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”) against

the individual defendants were not cognizable;

2. Plaintiff failed to state cognizable claims against the named defendants for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the Eighth Amendment;

3. Plaintiff failed to state cognizable claims against the named defendants for violation 

medical privacy; and 

4. Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for retaliation.

Case 1:04-cv-05215-LJO -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/16/05 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

U.S . District Court

 E. D . California 2

Based on these findings, the Court recommended that the action be dismissed in its entirety. 

This recommendation is HEREBY CORRECTED. The Court HEREBY RECOMMENDS that the

above claims be dismissed and that this action proceed on plaintiff’s ADA claims against the

defendants in their official capacities and on plaintiff’s state law claims. 

These findings and recommendations will be submitted to the United States District Judge

assigned to the case, pursuant to the provisions of Title 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(l). Within thirty (30)

days after being served with these findings and recommendations, the parties may file written

objections with the Court. The document should be captioned "Objections to Magistrate Judge's

Findings and Recommendations." The parties are advised that failure to file objections within the

specified time may waive the right to appeal the District Court's order. Martinez v. Ylst, 951 F.2d

1153 (9th Cir. 1991).

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: September 15, 2005 /s/ Dennis L. Beck 

3c0hj8 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05215-LJO -DLB Document 16 Filed 09/16/05 Page 2 of 2