Lennie Williams v. County of Los Angeles Department of Public Social Services et al

Filing 87

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge James V. Selna for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 84 . IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part and denied in part a s moot as detailed in, and for the reasons explained in the Report and Recommendation; (2) the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without further leave to amend and the action is dismissed with prejudice as against the Moving Defendants; and (3) t he Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing (a) the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend; (b) this action as against the Moving Defendants with prejudice; and (c) this action as against defendant Lupe Luque without prejudice. See Order for details. (dml)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

LENNIE WILLIAMS,

12
13
14
15
16
17

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC
SOCIAL SERVICES, et al.,

Case No. CV 14-7625 JVS(JC)
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED
STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

18
19

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the operative Second

20 Amended Complaint, all documents submitted in connection with (1) the Motion to
21 Dismiss (“Motion to Dismiss”) filed by the County of Los Angeles and defendants
22 Philip L. Browning, Jon Minato, and Dennis Veals (“Moving Defendants”), and all
23 of the records herein, including the December 21, 2016 Report and
24 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report and
25 Recommendation”) and petitioner’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation
26 (“Objections”). The Court has further made a de novo determination of those
27 portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. The
28 Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions,

1 and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge and overrules the
2 Objections.1
3

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: (1) the Motion to Dismiss is granted in part

4 and denied in part as moot as detailed in, and for the reasons explained in the
5 Report and Recommendation; (2) the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed
6 without further leave to amend and the action is dismissed with prejudice as
7 against the Moving Defendants; and (3) the Clerk shall enter judgment dismissing
8 (a) the Second Amended Complaint without leave to amend; (b) this action as
9 against the Moving Defendants with prejudice; and (c) this action as against
10 defendant Lupe Luque without prejudice.
11

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order, the

12 Report and Recommendation, and the Judgment herein on plaintiff and on counsel
13 for defendants.
14

IT IS SO ORDERED

15 DATED: February 8, 2017
16
17

________________________________________

18

HONORABLE JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

To the extent that Williams accuses the Magistrate Judge of bias and prejudice (Plaintiff
Written Statement of Objections, pp. 6, 10), the Court finds no basis for recusal under Section
455(a). 28 U.S.C. § 455(a). The fact that a judge has made rulings adverse to a party, standing
alone, is not a basis for disqualification. Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555 (1994);
United States v. Hernandez-Escarsega, 886 F.2d 1560, 1581 (9th Cir. 1989). He presents no
other basis for recusal.

2