1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 VADIM STANLEY MIESEGAES, Case No. CV 20-09945 CJC (RAO)

13 Plaintiff,

14 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND 15 MALINDA DURNEN, et al., RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE 16 Defendants. JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended 19 Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 9, the Report and Recommendation of the United 20 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), Dkt. No. 11, Plaintiff’s Objections, Dkt. No. 14, 21 and all other records and files herein. Further, the Court has made a de novo 22 determination of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 23 Although the Court is not persuaded by the Objections, the Court briefly addresses 24 one of Plaintiff’s arguments. 25 Plaintiff argues that official capacity claims must be dismissed without 26 prejudice under Freeman v. Oakland Unified School District,

(9th 27 Cir. 1999). In Freeman, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that 28 the Eleventh Amendment barred a claim against a school district, but ordered the 1 || district court to modify its dismissal of the claim to be without prejudice as it was a 2 || dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. /d. Here, Plaintiff's official capacity claims are 3 || being dismissed for failure to state a claim and not for lack of jurisdiction. 4 || Accordingly, Freeman is inapplicable and Plaintiff's Objections are overruled. 5 The Court hereby accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings, 6 || conclusions, and recommendations. IT IS ORDERED that this action is dismissed 7 || with prejudice and without leave to amend. 8 || | DATED: March 26, 2021 Ko fe “ □ (OF □ HON. CORMAC J. CARNEY

13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28