Dijon Bernard v. Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: November 10, 2025
• Docket: 2:23-cv-06384
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3

6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 WESTERN DIVISION 10 DIJON BERNARD, ) Case No. 2:23-cv-06384-SB-DTB ) 11 ) Plaintiff, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 12 ) v. ) CONCLUSIONS AND 13 ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY ) UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 ) METROPOLITAN ) JUDGE 15 TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY, ) ) 16 ) Defendant. ) 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended 19 Complaint, all the records and files herein, and the Report and Recommendation of 20 the United States Magistrate Judge. Objections to the Report and 21 Recommendation have been filed herein. Having made a de novo determination of 22 those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been 23 made, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings, conclusions, and 24 recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 25 Plaintiff has asserted numerous objections that are largely conclusory and 26 fail to demonstrate any material error. To the extent that he attempts to recast his claims or present new theories (e.g., Dkt. No. 55 at 3–4 (alleging new facts 27 concerning Defendant’s knowledge of Plaintiff’s religious beliefs)), this is 28 1 improper. See Greenhow vy. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 638 (9th Cir. 1988) 2 || (“[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the magistrate and, if 3 |/unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different theory to the district 4 || court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act. We do not believe that 5 ||the Magistrates Act was intended to give litigants an opportunity to run one version 6 || of their case past the magistrate, then another past the district court.”). Nor do any 7 || of these new allegations or theories suggest that further amendment would cure the 8 || deficiencies. 9 IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Judgment be entered granting 10 || Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings and dismissing without leave to 11 ||amend all claims alleged in the Third Amended Complaint against Defendant and 12 || dismissing this action with prejudice. 13 14 || Dated: November 10, 2025 Foes 5 STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. United States District Judge 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28