Murad Clark v. City of Los Angeles

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MURAD CLARK, Case No. CV 20-10768 CAS (PVC) Plaintiff,

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, v. CONCLUSIONS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et al., STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s “Stipulation of Plaintiff Filing First Amended Complaint,” construed as a Motion for Leave to File a First Amended Complaint, the proposed First Amended Complaint attached to the Motion, all the records and files herein, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge, and Plaintiff’s Objections. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. Plaintiff’s request for a hearing on the Motion is DENIED. The amendments in the proposed First Amended Complaint speak for themselves and do not require further elucidation. C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15.

IT IS ORDERED THAT Plaintiff’s motion for leave to file a First Amended Complaint is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to re-filing a motion for leave to amend consistent with the guidance in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation and without prejudice upon an appropriate showing, to refiling a motion to seek leave to add a claim under Monell v. Dep't of Soc. Servs. of City of New York, 436 U.S. 658 (1978), or for supervisory liability.

DATED: May 21, 2021

Martin bryde_ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE