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

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CHERYL LYNN DOUGLAS, et al., No. 2:24-cv-0331-KJM-CKD (PS) 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER 13 v. 14 THE EZRALOW COMPANY LLC, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 This matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge under Local Rule 302(c)(21). 18 On July 10, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations to dismiss plaintiffs’ 19 complaint without prejudice. See ECF No. 39. On July 24, 2025, the magistrate judge filed 20 findings and recommendations to deny plaintiffs’ request for a continuance and for a temporary 21 restraining order. See ECF No. 41. Both contained a notice that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. See ECF Nos. 39, 41. Plaintiffs 23 filed a motion to recuse the magistrate judge, which, out of an abundance of caution, the court 24 also construes as objections to both of the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations. See 25 ECF No. 42. 26 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 27 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed this matter, the 28 court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper 1 | analysis. Further, plaintiffs have not identified any serious extrajudicial source of prejudice or 2 || made a serious argument that any specific ruling by the magistrate judge is so “extreme as to 3 || display [a] clear inability to render fair judgment” to make disqualification of the magistrate 4 || judge necessary. See Litecky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-55 (1994). In any event, as the 5 || court is closing the case, see below, the motion to recuse the magistrate judge is moot. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: 7 1. The findings and recommendations filed July 10, 2025 (ECF No. 39), are adopted in 8 full. 9 2. The findings and recommendations filed July 24, 2025 (ECF No. 41) are adopted in 10 full. 11 3. Plaintiffs’ motion for a temporary restraining order and for a continuance of 12 proceedings (ECF No. 40) is DENIED. 13 4. Plaintiffs’ complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. 14 5. Plaintiffs’ motion to recuse the magistrate judge (ECF No. 42) is DENIED. 15 6. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 16 This order resolves ECF Nos. 39, 40, 41, 42. 17 IT IS SO ORDERED. 18 | DATED: August 20, 2025.

20 ae . □□□ STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28