John Shaw v. Timothy Lindgren

Case 2:19-cv-02700-DMG-AGR Document 88 Filed 09/27/22 Page 1 of 2 Page ID #:669 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA JOHN SHAW, ) NO. CV 19-2700-DMG (AGR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 12 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE TIMOTHY LINDGREN, et al., ) ) 14 Defendants. ) ) 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint, records on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.

21 IT IS ORDERED that Defendant L.A. Care’s motion to dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), in which Defendants Jeanette Cato and Gabriela Rubio joined, is GRANTED.

24 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Second Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend as to all defendants, including the remaining unserved individual defendants (Jacki Bussian and Timothy Lindgren). Defendant’s motion to dismiss requested dismissal as to all defendants including those who were not served and had not appeared. (Dkt. No. 63 at 2 n.1.) Defendants Bussian and Lindgren are in positions similar to the moving defendants, and the claims against ase 2:19-cv-02700-DMG-AGR Document 88 Filed 09/27/22 Page2of2 Page ID #:670 || them are integrally related. See Report at 7-11; Silverton v. Dep't of Treasury, 644 | F.2d 1341, 1345 (9th Cir. 1981). Leave to amend would be futile. See a/so || Desaigoudar v. Meyercord, 223 F.3d 1020, 1026 (9th Cir. 2000) (citation omitted) || (court’s discretion to deny leave to amend Is “‘particularly broad where plaintiff has || previously amended the complaint”).

8 | DATED: September 27, 2022 Dn _ 9 Pe States District Judge