(PS) Douglas v. The Ezralow Co., LLC.

Opinion

CHERYL LYNN DOUGLAS, et al., No. 2:24-cv-0331-KJM-CKD (PS) Plaintiffs, ORDER v. THE EZRALOW COMPANY LLC, et al., Defendants. This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations to dismiss plaintiffs’ complaint without prejudice. See ECF No. 39. On July 24, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations to deny plaintiffs’ request for a continuance and for a temporary restraining order. See ECF No. 41. Both contained a notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. See ECF Nos. 39, 41. Plaintiffs filed a motion to recuse the magistrate judge, which, out of an abundance of caution, the court also construes as objections to both of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See ECF No. 42. In accordance with the provisions of 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 this matter, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. Further, plaintiffs have not identified any serious extrajudicial source of prejudice or made a serious argument that any specific ruling by the magistrate judge is so “extreme as to display [a] clear inability to render fair judgment” to make disqualification of the magistrate judge necessary. See Litecky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-55 (1994). In any event, as the court is closing the case, see below, the motion to recuse the magistrate judge is moot. Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 10, 2025 (ECF No. 39), are adopted in full. 2. The findings and recommendations filed July 24, 2025 (ECF No. 41) are adopted in full. 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and for a continuance of proceedings (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. 4. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 5. Plaintiffs’ motion to recuse the magistrate judge (ECF No. 42) is DENIED. 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. This order resolves ECF Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42. DATED: August 20, 2025.

ae . □□□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE