Daram
(PC) Cox v. Daram
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 ERNEST LEE COX, JR., Case No. 2:21-cv-01778-DJC-JDP (PC) Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS v. THAT DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO
DISMISS BE GRANTED
VASUKI DARAM, et al., ECF No. 38 Defendants.
OBJECTIONS DUE WITHIN FOURTEEN
DAYS 17 Plaintiff Ernest Lee Cox, Jr. is a state prisoner proceeding without counsel in this action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He alleges that defendants violated his rights under the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), the Rehabilitation Act (“RA”), and Eighth Amendment when they denied him use of a continuous positive air pressure (“CPAP”) machine.1 ECF No. 12 at 2. Defendants have moved to dismiss the case, arguing that his claims are non- 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 screening order found cognizable only…