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

11 BRIAN FINANDER and No. CV 5:20-cv-00449-JVS (GJS) MARLENE FINANDER, 12 Plaintiffs ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 13 AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF v. UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 14 JUDGE RIVERSIDE COUNTY [California], 15 et al.,

16 Defendants.

17 18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 19 Complaint [Dkt. 27] and all pleadings and documents filed and lodged in this action, 20 including: the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint brought by 21 Defendant County of Riverside [Dkt. 33, “County Motion”] and the related 22 Opposition and Reply [Dkts. 46, 58]; the motion to dismiss the First Amended 23 Complaint brought by Defendant Superior Court of California, County of Riverside 24 [Dkt. 59, “Superior Court Motion”] and the related Opposition and Reply [Dkts. 65- 25 66]; the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 68, 26 “Report”]; and Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report [Dkt. 69]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 27 § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review 28 of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated. 1 Having completed its review, the Court concludes that nothing in the 2 || Objections calls into question any aspect of the Report, nor does anything in the 3 || Objections warrant discussion. The Court accepts the findings and 4 || recommendations set forth in the Report. In addition, the Court finds that the 5 || Superior Court is not a person for purposes of civil rights statute

. 6 || Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police,

(1989). 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the County Motion and the Superior 8 || Court Motion are GRANTED; (2) the First Amended Complaint is dismissed 9 || without leave to amend; and (3) this action is dismissed with prejudice. 10 11 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 12 13 14 (] zs / 1 7 15 || DATE: July 23, 2020 He eet 1 J 16 UNITED STATING DISTRICT JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28