Rosario Adolfo Reyes Jauregui v. Department of Homeland Security

• Court: District Court, C.D. California
• Decided: September 23, 2024
• Docket: 8:23-cv-01633
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 ROSARIO ADOLFO REYES Case No. SACV 23-1633-MWF (AJR) JAUREGUI, 12 Plaintiff ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 13 AND RECOMMENDATION OF v. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 JUDGE DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND 15 SECURITY, et al.,

16 Defendants.

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended 18 Complaint (Docket No. 26), the Report and Recommendation of the United States 19 Magistrate Judge recommending dismissal of this action with prejudice for failure to 20 state a claim (“Report,” Docket No. 27), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (Docket 21 No. 29), and other relevant records on file. 22 Although not required, the Court briefly makes the following observations. 23 See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court 24 ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v. 25 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order 26 summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report 27 and recommendation). The Objections are essentially a premature request for 28 discovery. (See, e.g., Docket No. 29 at 2-4). Despite multiple opportunities as 1 || detailed in the Report (Docket No. 27 at 2-10), Plaintiff's complaint and amended 2 || complaints have not survived screening under Rule 8 of the Federal rules of Civil 3 || Procedure. See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 686 (2009) (“Because respondent’s 4 || complaint is deficient under Rule 8, he is not entitled to discovery, cabined or 5 || otherwise.”); Mujica v. AirScan Inc., 771 F.3d 580, 593 (9th Cir. 2014) (“The 6 || Supreme Court has stated .. . that plaintiffs must satisfy the pleading requirements 7 || of Rule 8 before the discovery stage, not after it.”). And, notably, Plaintiff seeks no 8 || further amendment but instead elects to “maintain[] the allegations in his original 9 || complaint” already found deficient (Docket No. 29 at 4). See Foman v. Davis, 371 10 || U.S. 178, 182 (1962) (leave to amend improper where there has been “repeated 11 || failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed’). 12 Accordingly, the Objections are overruled, and the disposition recommended 13 || by the Report is accepted in full. 14 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 15 (1) the Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and 16 || conclusions; and 17 (2) judgment shall be entered DISMISSING this action with prejudice for 18 || failure to state a claim. 19 | pI 20 || Dated: September 23, 2024 MICHAEL W. FITZ D i! United States District Judge 22 23 24 25 26 27 28