Desiree Grisham v. County of Los Angeles et al

Filing 46

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge Percy Anderson. IT IS ORDERED: 1. The portion of the Report and Recommendation 28 that has not been withdrawn is accepted; 2. Defendant County of Los Angeles� 39; Second Motion to Dismiss 18 is GRANTED, and the First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice for failure to state a claim as to defendant County of Los Angeles; 3. Defendant County of Los Angeles is dismissed from this action; 4. The clerk shall serve this Order on all counsel or parties of record. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. (COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES IS TERMINATED.) (ch)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

WESTERN DIVISION

11
12

DESIREE GRISHAM,

13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, et al.,
Defendants.

17

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. CV 16-8079-PA (PLA)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES
MAGISTRATE JUDGE

18

On October 23, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge issued a Report and

19

Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending: (1) that defendant County of Los Angeles’ Second

20

Motion to Dismiss be granted as to the County for failure to state a claim, and (2) that plaintiff’s

21

claims against the individual defendants be dismissed for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 28). On

22

November 7, 2017, plaintiff filed Objections to the R&R (ECF No. 36), as well as proofs of service

23

as to the three individual defendants (ECF Nos. 33-35). On November 21, 2017, defendants filed

24

a Response to the Objections. (ECF No. 37). The Magistrate Judge then withdrew that portion

25

of the R&R recommending that plaintiff’s claims against the individual defendants be dismissed

26

for failure to prosecute. (ECF No. 44).

27

Accordingly, and pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended

28

Complaint, the other records on file herein, the Magistrate Judge’s October 23, 2017, Report and

1

Recommendation, plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation, and the Response

2

of defendants to plaintiff’s Objections. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those

3

portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The Court

4

accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.

5

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

6

1.

7
8
9
10

The portion of the Report and Recommendation that has not been withdrawn is

accepted;
2.

Defendant County of Los Angeles’ Second Motion to Dismiss is granted, and the

First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice for failure to
state a claim as to defendant County of Los Angeles;

11

3.

Defendant County of Los Angeles is dismissed from this action;

12

4.

The clerk shall serve this Order on all counsel or parties of record.

13
14

DATED: November 30, 2017

___________________________________
HONORABLE PERCY ANDERSON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2