Florence Walker v. State of California

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FLORENCE WALKER, Case No. EDCV 21-419-JFW (KK) Plaintiff, v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendant(s). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third 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. To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege new facts in the Objections, the Court declines to consider them. See Hebert v. Moreno, No. EDCV 15-2641-PSG (KS), 2016 WL 1733425, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (noting a district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider assertions presented for the first time in objections to a report and recommendation). Moreover, the Objections are needlessly long, confusing, and often incomprehensible. It is not the Court’s responsibility to comb through the Objections for valid claims and the Court declines to do so. See (finding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) “has been held to be violated by a pleading that was needlessly long, ... confused, or consisted of incomprehensible rambling” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Hence, the Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing (1) Plaintiffs federal claims with prejudice and without leave to amend and (2) Plaintiffs state law claims without prejudice. Dated: September 14, 2021 2 a 7, 7 oO FONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER a TOM States District Judge