Sohrab Haroonian v. Committee of Bar Examiners et al

Filing 16

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Valerie Baker Fairbank. Plaintiffs objections to the R&R are OVERRULED. The May 13, 2016 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED. The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice. The defendants' May27, 2016 motion to dismiss the complaint [Doc #11] is DENIED without prejudice as moot. (See document for further details). (mr)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SOHRAB HAROONIAN,

)
)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
)
COMMITTEE OF BAR EXAMINERS, )
STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, and
)
John Does 1-10,
)
)

No. LA CV 16-02995-VBF-SS
ORDER
Adopting the Report & Recommendation;
Dismissing the Action With Prejudice for
Failure to State a Claim on Which Relief
Can Be Granted;
Directing Entry of Separate Judgment;
Terminating & Closing the Case (JS-6)

Defendants.
_
This is a pro se non-prisoner civil-rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. section 1983.
Pursuant to her authority under Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1), title 28 U.S.C. section 636(b)(1)(B),
and C.D. Cal. Local Civil Rule 72-3.3, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report
and Recommendation (“R&R”) on May 13, 2016. See Case Management / Electronic Case
Filing System Document (“Doc”) Doc 6.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the complaint (Doc 1), the
Magistrate Judge’s May 13, 2016 R&R (Doc 6), plaintiff Haroonian’s timely May 25, 2016
objections to the R&R (Doc 7), and the applicable law. “Federal Rule of Civil Procedure
72(b)(2) gave [defendants] a right to respond to the objections, but the time to do so has
elapsed and [defendants have] filed neither a response nor a request for an extension of time.
Accordingly, the Court proceeds to the merits without waiting further.” Ruelas v. Muniz,

No. SA CV 14-01761, 2016 WL 540769, *1 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 9, 2016) (Fairbank, J.).
“As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of
the portions of the R&R to which [plaintiff] has specifically objected and finds no defect of
law, fact, or logic in the . . . R&R.” Rael v. Foulk, No. LA CV 14-02987 Doc. 47, 2015 WL
4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015) (Fairbank, J.), COA denied, No. LA CV 14-02987 Doc.
53, Appeal No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept and
implement the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations.

ORDER
Plaintiff’s objections to the R&R are OVERRULED.
The May 13, 2016 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED.
The complaint is DISMISSED with prejudice.

The defendants’ May 27, 2016 motion to dismiss the complaint [Doc #11] is DENIED
without prejudice as moot.

“As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by separate
document.” Toy v. Soto, 2015 WL 2168744, *1 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015) (citing Jayne v.
Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013)) (n.1 omitted), appeal filed, No. 15-55866 (9th
Cir. June 5, 2015).1
1

Accord Buck v. American Quarter Horse Ass’n, 602 F. App’x 709, 710 n.1 (10th Cir. 2015)
(“[W]e note that the district court did not prepare a separate document entering judgment in
accordance with Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a).”).
“‘To comply with Rule 58, an order must (1) be self-contained and separate from the opinion;
(2) note the relief granted; and (3) omit or substantially omit the district court’s reasons for disposing
of the claims.’” Elkins v. Foulkes, 2014 WL 2615732, *14 n.4 (C.D. Cal. June 12, 2014) (quoting
Daley v. USAO, 538 F. App’x 142, 143 (3d Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (citation omitted)).
“‘A combined document denominated an Order and Judgment, containing factual
background, legal reasoning, as well as a judgment, generally will not satisfy the rule’s
prescription.’” Fisher v. Ventura Cty. Sheriffs Narcotics Agency, 2014 WL 2772705, *7 n.9 (C.D.

The Clerk of Court SHALL TERMINATE and close the case (JS-6).
DATED: Wednesday, July 6, 2016

Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge

Cal. June 18, 2014) (quoting In re Taumoepeau, 523 F.3d 1213, 1217 (10th Cir. 2008)).