Florence Walker v. State of California

Opinion

1 2

4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8

9 10 FLORENCE WALKER, Case No. EDCV 21-419-JFW (KK) 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF 13 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, ET AL., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 14 Defendant(s). 15 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended 18 Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the 19 United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those 20 portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. 21 To the extent Plaintiff is attempting to allege new facts in the Objections, the 22 Court declines to consider them. See Hebert v. Moreno, No. EDCV 15-2641-PSG 23 (KS), 2016 WL 1733425, at *1 (C.D. Cal. Apr. 29, 2016) (noting a district court has 24 discretion, but is not required, to consider assertions presented for the first time in 25 objections to a report and recommendation). Moreover, the Objections are needlessly 26 long, confusing, and often incomprehensible. It is not the Court’s responsibility to 27 comb through the Objections for valid claims and the Court declines to do so. See 1 | (finding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a) “has been held to be violated by a 2 | pleading that was needlessly long, ... confused, or consisted of incomprehensible 3 | rambling” (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)). Hence, the Court accepts 4 | the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 5 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Judgment be entered dismissing (1) 6 | Plaintiffs federal claims with prejudice and without leave to amend and (2) Plaintiffs 7 | state law claims without prejudice. 8 Dated: September 14, 2021 2 a 7, 7 oO FONORABLE JOHN F. WALTER 11 a TOM States District Judge 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28