Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05215/USCOURTS-caed-1_04-cv-05215-4/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

1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAVID BROWN, )

)

)

)

Plaintiff, )

)

vs. )

)

)

CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF )

CORRECTIONS, et al., )

)

)

Defendant. )

)

)

No. CV-F-04-5215 REC/DLB P

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS (Docs. 15 &

16) AND DISMISSING CERTAIN

DEFENDANTS AND CLAIMS

Plaintiff David Brown 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 August 4, 2005, the United States Magistrate Judge issued

Findings and Recommendations in this case. On September 16,

2005, the Magistrate Judge filed a correction to the Findings and

Recommendations, filed on August 4, 2005, which was served on the

Case 1:04-cv-05215-LJO -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/09/05 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

2

parties and which contained notice to the parties that any

objections to the Findings and Recommendations were to be filed

within thirty (30) days. On October 5, 2005, plaintiff filed

objections to the Findings and Recommendations.

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 corrected Findings and Recommendation

to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.

ACCORDINGLY:

1. The Corrected Findings and Recommendation, filed

September 16, 2005, are adopted in full;

2. Plaintiff's claims pursuant to the Americans with

Disabilities Act against the individual defendants are dismissed;

3. Plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief

can be granted against the named defendants for deliberate

indifference to his serious medical needs in violation of the

Eighth Amendment, for violation of medical privacy, and for

retaliation, and those claims are dismissed.

4. This action will proceed on plaintiff's claims under the

Americans with Disabilities Act against the defendants in their

official capacities and on plaintiff's pendent state law claims.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 8, 2005 /s/ Robert E. Coyle 

668554 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:04-cv-05215-LJO -DLB Document 18 Filed 11/09/05 Page 2 of 2