(PC) Ellington v. Clark et al, No. 1:2009cv02141 - Document 53 (E.D. Cal. 2010)

Court Description: ORDER Adopting FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS And Dismissing Certain Claims And Defendants (ECF No. 31 ), signed by Chief Judge Anthony W. Ishii on 8/3/2010. (Scrivner, E)

Download PDF
(PC) Ellington v. Clark et al Doc. 53 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 MARCUS RUBEN ELLINGTON, 10 11 12 13 CASE NO. 1:09-CV-02141-AWI-DLB PC Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS AND DISMISSING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEFENDANTS v. CLARK, et al., (ECF NO. 31) Defendants. / 14 15 Plaintiff Marcus Ruben Ellington (“Plaintiff”) is a California state prisoner proceeding pro 16 se in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 17 the Rehabilitation Act. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 18 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 19 On June 7, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Findings and Recommendations that 20 recommended dismissal of certain claims and defendants. The Findings and Recommendations 21 were served on Plaintiff and contained notice to Plaintiff that any objection to the Findings and 22 Recommendations was to be filed within twenty days. Plaintiff filed an Objection to the Findings 23 and Recommendations on June 17, 2010. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court has conducted a de 25 novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the Findings and 26 Recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 27 Plaintiff’s contention that individual defendants are liable under the ADA is without merit. 28 Plaintiff’s contention that Defendants violated the Fourth Amendment, due process, and equal 1 Dockets.Justia.com 1 protection is unsupported by the pleadings. Plaintiff’s contention that all other defendants had “first 2 hand knowledge” of the alleged violations is unsupported by the pleadings. 3 demonstrate only that Plaintiff grieved these issues. That alone does not demonstrate that the other 4 defendants violated Plaintiff’s constitutional rights. The exhibits 5 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 6 1. The Findings and Recommendations, filed June 7, 2010, is adopted in full; 7 2. Defendants Patel, Castro, Guiang, N. Grannis, C. Hammond, S. Lopez, Ariarch, 8 Schwarzenegger, K. Harrington, the Director of CDCR, and C. Kelso are 9 DISMISSED from this action with prejudice for failure to state a claim; 10 3. This action SHALL proceed on Plaintiff’s first amended complaint, filed April 30, 11 2010, against Defendant Akanno for violation of the Eighth Amendment and 12 Defendant Kern Valley State Prison for violation of Title II of the Americans with 13 Disabilities Act and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act; and 14 4. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 15 16 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: 0m8i78 August 3, 2010 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 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.