(PC) Rodriguez v. Pfeiffer

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MANUEL RODRIGUEZ, Case No. 1:21-cv-00572-JLT-EPG (PC) Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND v. (Docs. 50 & 58) CHRISTIAN PFEIFFER, et al., ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT Defendants. MARTHA SPAETH M.D.

Defendant Spaeth filed a motion to dismiss the claims against her in Plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint. (Doc. 50). The assigned magistrate judge entered findings and recommendations, recommending that “Defendant Spaeth’s motion to dismiss be granted (Doc. 50), and Defendant Spaeth be dismissed from this action with prejudice and without leave to amend.” (Doc. 58 at 10). The Court provided the parties an opportunity to file objections to the findings and recommendations. Plaintiff filed objections, which “respectfully request[] that there be an amendment to a final order of this Court; to wit, should the Plaintiff discover[] facts which would further prove liability against Defendant Spaeth, that Plaintiff be allowed to file a motion to amend the complaint alleging said further facts.” (Doc. 59, at 2). Defendants then filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections. (Doc. 60). Defendants’ response notes that: l [T]he Magistrate Judge recommended that dismissal of Defendant Spaeth without leave to amend was proper because “Plaintiff has argued the issue of supervisory liability on the basis of the same purported policy three times;” that “the Court conclude, based on identical facts as alleged in Plaintiff's SAC,” Plaintiff “failed to allege sufficient fact demonstrating that such a policy existed;” and, as such, further amendment “would be futile.” (Doc. 58 at 10 (citing Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[d]ismissal without leave to amend 1s proper if it is clear that the complaint could not be saved by amendment.”).) Indeed, Defendants made this same argument in Defendants’ reply to Plaintiff's opposition. (See Doc. 52 at 6 (citing Gonzalez v. Planned Parenthood of Los Angeles, 759 F.3d 1112, 1116 (9th Cir. 2014) (“[T]he district court's discretion in denying amendment is ‘particularly broad’ when it has previously given leave to amend.”).) Ud. at 2). Defendants further argue that the assigned magistrate judge recommended that Defendant Spaeth be dismissed with prejudice for similar reason. (/d.) According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this Court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and proper analysis. The procedures set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 remain available to Plaintiff should discovery reveal additional, relevant facts. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 1. The findings and recommendations issued January 4, 2023, (Doc. 58), are 2. Defendant Spaeth’s motion to dismiss (Doc. 50) is GRANTED without leave to amend and this defendant is DISMISSED. 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Defendant Spaeth on the Court’s docket. 4. This case is referred to the assigned magistrate judge for further proceedings. IT IS SO ORDERED. . Dated: _ March 6, 2023 : TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE