(PS) Rogers v. Bonta ( 2022 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 KIM EDWARD ROGERS, No. 2:22-cv-00314-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 ROB BONTA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff proceeds in this civil action pro se. The matter was referred to the magistrate 18 judge under this Court’s Local Rules. 19 On October 20, 2022, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 20 25), which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the 21 findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On November 2, 2022, 22 the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 27), which were served on the 23 parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were 24 to be filed within fourteen (14) days. No objections were filed to either of the magistrate judge’s 25 findings and recommendations. Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are 26 correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s 27 conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 28 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 The Court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 | concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the findings and recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 4 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF Nos. 25, 27) are ADOPTED IN FULL; 5 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, and the claims against 6 defendants Bonta and “Newsome” as stated in the original complaint (ECF No. 1) are 7 DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; 8 3. Plaintiff is granted leave to conduct limited discovery regarding the name of Doe 9 Defendant #1 and is thereafter be granted leave to amend as to this Defendant only. 10 Plaintiff shall follow the magistrate judge’s instructions for discovery and amendment, as 11 outlined in the October 20, 2022 findings and recommendations (ECF No. 25 at 6). Any 12 failure on Plaintiff's part to serve the discovery request on Defendant or file an amended 13 complaint as directed by the magistrate judge will result in sanctions, which may include 14 dismissal of Plaintiff’s complaint with prejudice; 15 4. Plaintiff's emergency motion for temporary restraining order (ECF No. 26) is DENIED; 16 and 17 5. Regarding Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 29), the Court sua sponte 18 DENIES this motion as premature, as there is currently no operative complaint. Further, 19 the Court ratifies the magistrate judge’s prior denial of plaintiff's motions for summary 20 judgment (see ECF Nos. 12, 13) for the rationale stated by the magistrate judge on May 21 24, 2022. Finally, the Court sua sponte DENIES plaintiff's motion for summary judgment 22 filed on June 15, 2022 for the same reasons stated in the magistrate judge’s May 24, 2022 23 minute order. 24 | DATED: December 29, 2022 /) ff “ / } ArAaPhW 26 — a Z 97 Troy L. Nunley . } United States District Judge 28