(PC) Tunstall v. Knowles, et al, No. 2:2008cv03176 - Document 95 (E.D. Cal. 2010)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING 91 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS in full signed by Judge William B. Shubb on 09/03/10 and ORDERING that dft's 55 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART; plf's request for prospective injunctive relief on h is claims under the ADA is dismissed w/o prejudice to his right to seek relief as a member of the class in Armstrong v. Davis; dfts are directed to file an answer to plf's claims under the ADA, the RA, and the equal protection clause w/i 10 days from the date of this order. (Benson, A.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
(PC) Tunstall v. Knowles, et al Doc. 95 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ROBERT TUNSTALL, 11 Plaintiff, 12 13 14 vs. MIKE KNOWLES, et al., Defendants. 15 16 No. 2:08-cv-3176 WBS JFM (PC) ORDER / Plaintiff, a state prisoner proceeding pro se, has filed this civil rights action 17 seeking relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate 18 Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On August 6, 2010, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 20 (Docket No. 91) herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all 21 parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen 22 days. Plaintiff has filed objections to the findings and recommendations. 23 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 24 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire 25 file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by 26 proper analysis. 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations filed August 6, 2010 (Docket No. 91), are 3 adopted in full; 4 5 6 2. Defendants’ January 8, 2010 motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part; 3. Plaintiff’s request for prospective injunctive relief on his claims under the 7 Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (ADA) and Section 504 of the 8 Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794 (RA) is dismissed without prejudice to his right to seek relief 9 as a member of the class in Armstrong v. Davis; and 10 4. Defendants are directed to file an answer to plaintiff’s claims under the ADA, 11 the RA, and the equal protection clause within ten days from the date of this order. 12 DATED: September 3, 2010 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
