Plaintiff, who is proceeding pro se, brings this civil action alleging, among other things, violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. § 12101, et seq., as well as violations of his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Eastern District of California local rules.
On August 15, 2011, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were served on the parties and which contained notice that the parties may file objections within a specified time. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the findings and recommendations.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis.
Plaintiff reasserts in his objections that the magistrate judge failed to fully account for his argument that, because of his facial disfigurement, he is "regarded as" having a disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C.A. 12101 et seq. (See ECF 8.) Plaintiff appears to seek reconsideration of an order already reconsidered and ruled upon by the preceding district judge. (See ECF 7.) The court considers the earlier ruling as the law of the case and declines to re-examine the issue. See One Industries, LLC v. Jim O'Neal Distributing, Inc., 578 F.3d 1154, 1159 (9th Cir. 2009) ("the district court had an adequate opportunity to rule, and actually did rule, on the issue, making it the 'law of the case' and not subject to reopening").
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed August 15, 2011, are adopted in full; and
2. All claims and defendants are dismissed except plaintiff's § 1983 claim against defendant Williams based on retaliation.
© 1992-2012 VersusLaw ...