Dominique Daniels v. Wayne J. Dixon

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DOMINIQUE DANIELS, Case No. 8:21-cv-00223-CJC-MAR Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF WAYNE J. DIXON ET AL., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant(s). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court overrules Plaintiff’s objections and accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 1. The Magistrate Judge did not err in ruling on Plaintiff’s objections to the admissibility of evidence that Defendants proffered in support of summary judgment, including without limitation lack of foundation, and to the extent that any evidentiary Fed. Credit Union, 473 F. App’x 534, 536 n.1 (9th Cir.2012); Jeffries v. Las Vegas Metro. Police Dep’t, 713 F. App’x 549, 549–51 (9th Cir. 2017); Bohnert v. Roman Cath. Archbishop of S.F., 136 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 2. The Magistrate Judge ruled on Plaintiff’s objections under Federal Rules of Evidence 602, 801, 802, and 1002 to the evidence that Defendants proffered to the extent that the Magistrate Judge considered the evidence. (See Dkt. 122 at 9 [“Accordingly, the parties’ objections that are based on relevance or the admissibility of the form of evidence are unnecessary and overruled as moot.”].) 3. The Magistrate Judge properly considered the evidence set forth in the moving and opposing papers and the parts of the record cited therein and did not need to comb the record for other evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). 4. The purported facts that Plaintiff raises in her objections to the Report and Recommendation are not material facts in dispute. Those facts either are not material to the legal standards governing Plaintiff’s claims, are not supported by evidence that actually creates a genuine dispute, or are versions of events so “blatantly contradicted by” other, unchallenged parts of the record such “that no reasonable jury could believe” them. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

5. The Magistrate Judge did not improperly rely on material facts in dispute or draw improper inferences in the factual findings supporting the recommendation in favor of granting summary judgment. // // IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. 4+ | Dated: May 4, 2023 Ko ye i ° HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY United States District Judge