James Toledano v. Priscilla Marconi ( 2024 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JAMES TOLEDANO, Case No. SACV 22-1331-MWF (BFM) 12 Plaintiff ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 PRISCILLA MARCONI, et al., JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 18 Complaint (“SAC”, Docket No. 82), Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the SAC 19 (“Motions,” Docket Nos. 83, 85), the Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 84), 20 Plaintiff’s Oppositions to the Motions (Docket Nos. 88, 89), the Report and 21 Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending granting the 22 Request for Judicial Notice and Motions in part (“Report,” Docket No. 92), 23 Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (“Objections,” Docket No. 94), Defendants’ 24 Responses to the Objections (Docket Nos. 95, 96), and other relevant records on file. 25 Despite the de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate 26 Judge’s detailed and thorough Report. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 27 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized 28 analysis of each objection”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) 1 || (affirming a cursory district court order summarily adopting, without addressing any 2 || objections, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). The Magistrate Judge 3 || correctly followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit law in 4 || recommending no further leave to amend be granted and that only Defendant Lawler 5 || respond to the remaining claim in the SAC. 6 Accordingly, the Objections are overruled. 7 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 8 (1) The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and 9 || conclusions; 10 (2) The Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 84) is GRANTED IN 11 || PART; 12 (3) County Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. 83) is GRANTED IN PART 13 || and Private Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. 85) is GRANTED IN FULL as 14 || follows: 15 (a) Count One against Defendants Priscilla Ann Marconi, Richard D. 16 Marconi, Paul R. Roper, Anthony Rackauckas, and County of Orange 17 is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 18 (b) Count Two is DISMISSED without leave to amend; 19 (4) Defendant Lawler is ORDERED to respond to the remaining claim in the 20 || SAC no later than NOVEMBER 25, 2024; and 21 (5) The Clerk of the Court serve this Order on all counsel or parties of record. 22 | yy Wee He, 24 United Sues Disc 25 26 27 28