Tin Quoc Phan v. County of Orange

Opinion

Case 8:22-cv-00105-SB-PLA Document 28 Filed 06/18/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:208

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 SOUTHERN DIVISION 11 12 TIN QUOC PHAN, ) No. SA CV 22-105-SB (PLA) ) 13 Plaintiff, ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, ) CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION 14 v. ) OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE ) 15 COUNTY OF ORANGE, et al., ) ) 16 Defendants. ) ) 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, the 19 other records on file herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), and 20 petitioner’s Objections to the R&R. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions 21 of the Report and Recommendation to which plaintiff has raised general objections. 22 Plaintiff filed his Objections on June 15, 2022. (ECF No. 27). Plaintiff objects that the 23 “decision is completely unfair,” but he raises no specific objection to any portion of the R&R. (Id. 24 at 1). Further, in his Objections, plaintiff now asserts that his “daughter has been kidnaped from 25 [him] by the child protective services,” the “Agents work with the Olive Crest Adoption Services, 26 they are in the business of stealing” small children, “they are running a[n] operation that is aimed 27 at taking babies and very young children to be sold to private adopters,” and “they” are “stealing 28 Case 8:22-cv-00105-SB-PLA Document 28 Filed 06/18/22 Page 2of2 Page ID #:209

1 babies and selling them in an underground adoption.” (Id. 2, 9-10, 13). None of these claims was 2] raised in any of the three pleadings that plaintiff previously filed in this action. 3 Plaintiff further asserts generally that the “County of Orange Social Services took [his] child 4| in [sic] fraud, in retaliation, and in complete violation of every well understood procedure that | should be taken.” (Id. at 2). He additionally states, without any support, that the “social workers 6] and the Agency are completely corrupt[,] they have completely lied about everything,” the “social 7| workers are so wicked and heartless,” the “Agents are so completely despicable,” and “they even faked a dirty drug test.” (Id. at 3, 5, 8, 10). 9 Plaintiff repeats the unsupported and conclusory assertions that unspecified individuals 10] “lied” and told “the judge a bunch of complete lies”; that “it was complete lies they reported” to the 11] judge; and that “they” falsely told a judge that plaintiff “did not do anger management and 12] parenting at a[n] accredited school.” (Id. at 3, 5, 7, 11). Just as in the three pleadings that plaintiff 13] has filed, however, he sets forth no facts in the Objections showing that any defendant named in 14] this action made a specific false statement at any particular time. 15 Upon review of the Objections, the Court concludes that plaintiffs pleadings state nothing 16 more than “defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusations” and “naked assertion[s] devoid of 17 | further factual enhancement.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 173 L. Ed. 18 | 2d 868 (2009) (alteration in original, internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, the action 19] must be dismissed with prejudice for failure to state a claim. 20 The Court accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 21 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 22 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted. 23 2. Judgment shall be entered consistent with this Order. 24 3. The clerk shall serve this Order and the Judgment on all counsel or parties of record. 25 26 || DATED: June 18, 2022 ( ) = 27 ON INITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 28