Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01515/USCOURTS-caed-1_24-cv-01515-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 42:12101 Americans with Disabilities Act

---

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

JOSHUA CUEVAS,

Plaintiff,

v.

AL ROWHANNI SALAHALDEEN 

ABDO, et al.,

Defendants.

Case No. 1:24-cv-01515 JLT CDB

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND 

RECOMMENDATIONS AND DECLINING 

SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER 

PLAINTIFF’S STATE LAW CLAIMS

(Doc. 7) 

Joshua Cuevas seeks to hold the defendants— Al Rowhanni Salahaldeen Abdo, doing 

business as Salah’s Store, and Abdo Alrowhany—liable for violations of Title III of the 

Americans with Disabilities Act. In addition, Plaintiff asserts several claims arising under state 

law, including: California’s Unruh Civil Rights Act, Disabled Persons Act, Health and Safety

Code, and negligence. (Doc. 1.) Following an order to show cause regarding jurisdiction (Doc. 

5), the assigned magistrate judge issued Findings and Recommendations, recommending the 

Court decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s state law claims and dismiss 

the claims without prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4). (Doc. 7.) 

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on Plaintiff1and informed him that 

any objections must be filed within 14 days of the date of service. (Doc. 7 at 9.) The Court 

advised him that “failure to file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of 

1 Defendants have not yet appeared in this action.

Case 1:24-cv-01515-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 01/17/25 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

rights on appeal.” (Id., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-839 (9th Cir. 2014).) 

Plaintiff did not file objections, and the time to do so has expired. 

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of the case. 

Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 

are supported by the record and by proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

1. The Findings and Recommendations dated January 2, 2025 (Doc. 7) are 

ADOPTED in full.

2. The Court DECLINES to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s 

claims arising under state law pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(4).

3. Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the Unruh Act, Disabled Persons Act, Cal. 

Health & Safety Code, and negligence claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 17, 2025 

Case 1:24-cv-01515-JLT-CDB Document 9 Filed 01/17/25 Page 2 of 2