Anthony Conners v. Kathy

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: January 18, 2023
• Docket: 2:19-cv-07147
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

Case 2:19-cv-07147-JWH-SHK Document 136 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:689

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ANTHONY CONNERS, Case No. 2:19-cv-07147-JWH-SHK

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 KATHY, et al., JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 2:19-cv-07147-JWH-SHK Document 136 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:690

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 To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to raise new claims and arguments in his 9 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. Defendants’ MTD claim one from the SAC is GRANTED and 21 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 Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 136 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3of3 Page ID #:691

1 4. Plaintiff's MJP is DENIED without prejudice. 2 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 | Dated: January 18, 2023 VY. 5 HONORABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB 6 United States District Judge 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28