Daram

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERNEST LEE COX, JR., Case No. 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 13 v. THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO

DISMISS BE GRANTED

14 VASUKI DARAM, et al., ECF No. 38 15 Defendants.

OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN

16 DAYS 17 18 Plaintiff Ernest Lee Cox, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action 19 brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants violated his rights under the 20 Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), and Eighth 21 Amendment when they denied him use of a continuous positive air pressure (“CPAP”) machine.1 22 ECF No. 12 at 2. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case, arguing that his claims are non- 23 cognizable. ECF No. 38. For the reasons stated below, I recommend that the motion be granted. 24 25 26 1 Defendants also reference denial of single-cell status as a separate claim, but my 27 screening order found cognizable only…