James Toledano v. Priscilla Marconi et al
Filing
97
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 92 . IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Courts own findings and conclusions; The Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 84 ) is GRANTED IN PART; County Defendants' Motion (Docket No. 83 ) is GRANTED IN PART and Private Defendants' Motion (Docket No. 85 ) is GRANTED IN FULL as follows: (a) Count One against Defendants Prisci lla Ann Marconi, Richard D. Marconi, Paul R. Roper, Anthony Rackauckas, and County of Orange is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and (b) Count Two is DISMISSED without leave to amend; Defendant Lawler is ORDERED to respond to the remaining claim in the SAC no later than 11/25/2024. (et)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
JAMES TOLEDANO,
12
13
14
15
Plaintiff
v.
PRISCILLA MARCONI, et al.,
Case No. SACV 22-1331-MWF (BFM)
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
JUDGE
Defendants.
16
17
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended
18
Complaint (“SAC”, Docket No. 82), Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss the SAC
19
(“Motions,” Docket Nos. 83, 85), the Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 84),
20
Plaintiff’s Oppositions to the Motions (Docket Nos. 88, 89), the Report and
21
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending granting the
22
Request for Judicial Notice and Motions in part (“Report,” Docket No. 92),
23
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (“Objections,” Docket No. 94), Defendants’
24
Responses to the Objections (Docket Nos. 95, 96), and other relevant records on file.
25
Despite the de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate
26
Judge’s detailed and thorough Report. See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427,
27
434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized
28
analysis of each objection”); Wang v. Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005)
1
(affirming a cursory district court order summarily adopting, without addressing any
2
objections, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). The Magistrate Judge
3
correctly followed the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Ninth Circuit law in
4
recommending no further leave to amend be granted and that only Defendant Lawler
5
respond to the remaining claim in the SAC.
6
Accordingly, the Objections are overruled.
7
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:
8
(1) The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and
9
10
11
12
conclusions;
(2) The Request for Judicial Notice (Docket No. 84) is GRANTED IN
PART;
(3) County Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. 83) is GRANTED IN PART
13
and Private Defendants’ Motion (Docket No. 85) is GRANTED IN FULL as
14
follows:
15
(a) Count One against Defendants Priscilla Ann Marconi, Richard D.
16
Marconi, Paul R. Roper, Anthony Rackauckas, and County of Orange
17
is DISMISSED without leave to amend; and
18
(b) Count Two is DISMISSED without leave to amend;
19
20
21
(4) Defendant Lawler is ORDERED to respond to the remaining claim in the
SAC no later than NOVEMBER 25, 2024; and
(5) The Clerk of the Court serve this Order on all counsel or parties of record.
22
23
24
Dated: October 28, 2024
_________________________________
MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD
United States District Judge
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?