1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DARNELL BLACK, SR., Case No. CV 18-05064-RGK (RAO)

12 Plaintiff,

13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED 14 JAMES MARCELO, et al., STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 18 Complaint (“FAC”), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, all of the other records and files 19 herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge 20 (“Report”) issued on December 16, 2019. Further, the Court has made a de novo 21 determination of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 22 Included among Plaintiff’s objections to the Report is a new claim of an ADA 23 violation. When a claim is asserted for the first time in objections to the Report and 24 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, the Court has discretion 25 whether to consider it. Brown v. Roe,

(9th Cir. 2002). Here, 26 the Court exercises its discretion not to consider the claim because, as with the FAC’s 27 Section 1983 claims addressed in the Report, the new ADA claim is pleaded in a 28 conclusory fashion. 1 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions, 2 || and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED 4 || with prejudice. 5 6 | DATED: January 21, 2020 5 dG “Oo KRerccrrm g R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28