Anthony Conners v. Kathy et al

Filing 136

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge John W. Holcomb for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 127 . It is therefore ORDERED as follows: Defendants MTD claim one from the SAC is GRANTED and Defendant Catherine Giron is DISMISSED from this action. Defendants' MTD claim two from the SAC is DENIED. Defendants' MTD based upon qualified immunity is DENIED (yl)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

ANTHONY CONNERS,

12

Plaintiff,

13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

v.
KATHY, et al.,
Defendants.

Case No. 2:19-cv-07147-JWH-SHK
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE

1

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

2

Complaint (“SAC”), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) the SAC,

3

Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJP”), the relevant records on

4

file, and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States

5

Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of

6

the R&R to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and

7

recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

8
9

To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to raise new claims and arguments in his
Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court

10

declines to exercise its discretion to address those new arguments formally. See

11

United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 631-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (district judge did not

12

abuse discretion in refusing to consider factual allegations not presented to the

13

magistrate judge); see also Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744–45 (9th Cir. 2002)

14

(stating that a district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence

15

or claims presented for the first time in objections to a report and

16

recommendation). Nevertheless, the Court has considered each of Petitioner’s

17

proposed claims and arguments and concludes that they do not warrant further

18

analysis at this time.

19

It is therefore ORDERED as follows:

20

1.

21

Defendants’ MTD claim one from the SAC is GRANTED and

Defendant Catherine Giron is DISMISSED from this action.

22

2.

Defendants’ MTD claim two from the SAC is DENIED.

23

3.

Defendants’ MTD based upon qualified immunity is DENIED.

24
25
26
27
28

2

Plaintiff’s MJP is DENIED without prejudice.

1

4.

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3
4
5
6

Dated: January 18, 2023
HONORABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB
United States District Judge

7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

3