1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 MURAD CLARK, Case No. CV 20-10768 CAS (PVC)

12 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, 13 v. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Stipulation of 18 Plaintiff Filing First Amended Complaint,” construed as a Motion for Leave to File a First 19 Amended Complaint, the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the Motion, all 20 the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States 21 Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s Objections. After having made a de novo determination 22 of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the 23 Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 24 Plaintiff’s request for a hearing on the Motion is DENIED. The amendments in the 25 proposed First Amended Complaint speak for themselves and do not require further 26 elucidation. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. 27 IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended 28 Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing a motion for leave to amend 1 || consistent with the guidance in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and 2 || without prejudice upon an appropriate showing, to refiling a motion to seek leave to add a 3 || claim under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York,

(1978), or 4 || for supervisory liability. 5 || DATED: May 21, 2021 Martin bryde_ 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28