(PS) Bledsoe v. Facebook

Opinion

DONNELL BLEDSOE, No. 2:18-cv-2756-JAM-EFB PS Plaintiff, v. ORDER FACEBOOK; MARK ZUCKERBERG, Defendants. On July 6, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Plaintiff filed objections on July 20, 2020, and they were considered by the undersigned. This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). ///// The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed July 6, 2020, are adopted; 2. Plaintiff’s second amended complaint1 (ECF No. 7) is dismissed without leave to amend; and 3. The Clerk is directed to close the case. DATED: August 10, 2020 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE

1 After the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations issued, plaintiff filed a third amended complaint. ECF No. 10. That complaint fails to remedy the second amended complaint’s deficiencies, as set forth in the July 6, 2020 findings and recommendations, and does not state a state a claim for relief. Accordingly, there is no basis for allowing plaintiff to proceed on his third amended complaint.