Christopher Bunker v. Joseph Buccinio

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: December 2, 2024
• Docket: 2:23-cv-09263
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 CHRISTOPHER BUNKER, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09263-FLA (DFMx) 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 12 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 13 JOSEPH BUCCINIO, et al., JUDGE 14 Defendants. [DKT. 123] 15 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the pleadings and all the 17 records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of United States 18 Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Dkt. 123 (“R&R”). Furthermore, the court has 19 conducted a de novo review of the objections that were filed. Dkts. 124 (“Hannah’s 20 Obj.’s”), 125 (“Pls.’ Obj.’s”). 21 The Report recommends granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs 22 Christopher Bunker, Teresa Bunker, Adam Bunker, and Casey Bunker’s (“Plaintiffs”) 23 motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (“Motion”). See R&R; Dkt. 104. 24 The objections to the Report do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s 25 findings or recommendation. 26 Plaintiffs object that the Magistrate Judge is biased or has engaged in 27 misconduct. Pls.’ Obj.’s at 2. This objection is conclusory and lacks evidentiary 28 support. See United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th 1 | Cir. 1995) (“merely conclusory allegations” are “insufficient to support a claim of 2 | [judicial] bias or prejudice”) (citing United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. 3 | 1980)); Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (merely 4 || speculative assertions of invidious motive are insufficient to show judicial bias). 5 | Plaintiffs’ objections are OVERRULED. 6 Defendant Randal P. Hannah (“Hannah’’) objects that amendment should not be 7 || allowed because it would be futile. Hannah’s Obj.’s at 3-6. However, the court 8 | concurs with the Report that justice requires amendment. See R&R at 3 (explaining 9 | the court should freely give leave when justice so requires), 8 (explaining amendment 10 | will facilitate resolution on the merits). Thus, Hannah’s objection is OVERRULED 11 | without prejudice to renewal of the arguments for dismissal if Plaintiffs file a proper 12 | third amended complaint. 13 Accordingly, the court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations 14 | of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Motion (Dkt. 104) is GRANTED IN 15 | PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file a third 16 | amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of this Order that does not include 17 | Defendants Michelle H. Gilleece, Candice Garcia-Rodrigo, Lisa M. Rogan, or 18 | Douglas K. Mann. 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 | Dated: December 2, 2024 23 24 25 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge 26 27 28