1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No. 5:24-cv-00123-FWS-AGR 11 K.K.; ERNCIE GALAVIZ,

12 ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, Plaintiffs, CONCLUSIONS AND 13 RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 v. STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [22]

AND OVERRULING OBJECTION [24, 15 SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, 26] 16 ET AL., 17 Defendants. 18

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

2 Before the court is the Magistrate Judge’s July 16, 2024, Report and 3 Recommendation. (Dkt. 22 (“Report and Recommendation”).) Based on the state of 4 the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court ADOPTS the Report and 5 Recommendation issued by the Magistrate Judge, including each of the findings of 6 fact and conclusions of law therein. 7 On January 18, 2024, Plaintiff K.K. (“Plaintiff K.K.”) and Plaintiff Erncie 8 Galaviz (“Plaintiff Galaviz”) (together, “Plaintiffs”) filed the Complaint. (Dkt. 1.) 9 On March 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint. (Dkt. 11 (“FAC”).) 10 On March 20, 2024, Defendant County of San Bernardino and Defendant Ronda 11 Begay (“Defendant Begay”) (together, “Defendants”) filed the Motion to Dismiss the 12 FAC. (Dkt. 12 (“Motion”).) On May 6, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Opposition to the 13 Motion. (Dkt. 18.) On May 13, 2024, Defendants filed a Reply in support of the 14 Motion. (Dkt. 20.) 15 On May 20, 2024, the Magistrate Judge held a video conference hearing on the 16 Motion. (Dkt. 21.) On July 16, 2024, the Magistrate Judge filed the Report and 17 Recommendation. (Dkt. 22.) On July 28, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a Letter, (Dkt. 24 18 (“Letter”), and on August 9, 2024, Plaintiffs filed an Exhibit, (Dkt. 26, “Exhibit”).1 19 On August 23, 2024, Defendants filed a Response to the Objection. (Dkt. 28 20 (“Response”).) 21

22 1 The court liberally construes the contents of the Letter and Exhibit as an Objection to 23 the Report and Recommendation. See Erickson v. Pardus,

,

,

(2007) (stating “[a] document filed pro se is to be 24 liberally construed”) (citation and quotation marks omitted); Balistreri v. Pacifica 25 Police Dep’t,

(9th Cir. 1988) (stating “pro se pleadings are liberally construed”). Hereinafter, the court will refer to the Letter and the Exhibit, 26 collectively, as the “Objection.” 27 28 1 II. Analysis

2 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 3 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 4 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 5 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 6 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 7 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 8 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 9 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 10 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of 11 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to 12 which objection is made.”

(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 13 Tapia,

(9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 14 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 15 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 16 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See

(b)(1)(C) 17 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 18 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 19 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 20 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. 21 Haynes,

, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 22 Here, in the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge recommends 23 “the District Court issue an order (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; 24 (2) granting Defendants’ motion to dismiss; (3) dismissing Plaintiff K.K. from this 25 action without prejudice for failure to seek appointment of an appropriate guardian ad 26 litem; (4) dismissing Plaintiff Galaviz’s claims against Defendant Begay in Claims 27 Six and Seven without leave to amend and dismissing all other claims by Plaintiff 28 Galaviz with leave to amend; and (5) granting Plaintiff Galaviz leave to file a Second 1 Amended Complaint consistent with this Report within 30 days from the date of the

2 District Court’s order.” (Report and Recommendation at 16-17.) 3 The court has carefully reviewed the Objection and the Response. The court 4 agrees with Defendants that the Objection “do[es] not present any new or contrasting 5 evidence to Plaintiffs’ allegations, nor the reasoning of the Court in their understanding 6 of the allegations, nor do they raise any reasonable or applicable objections to the 7 Report and Recommendation of the Court.” (Response at 2.) 8 After conducting a de novo review of the Objection, the court agrees with each 9 of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and 10 Recommendation, including each of the recommendations contained therein. 11 Accordingly, the Objection is OVERRULED on the merits. 12 In sum, pursuant to

, the court has reviewed the record, 13 including the Report and Recommendation, the FAC, the Motion, the Objection, the 14 Response, and the other records of the case. After conducting a de novo determination 15 of the Report and Recommendation and considering the Objection and the Response, 16 the court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the Magistrate 17 Judge in the Report and Recommendation. 18 III. Conclusion 19 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the court 20 adopts and the Report and Recommendation, and accepts each of the findings of fact 21 and conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the court ORDERS the following: 22 23 (1) the Motion is GRANTED; 24 25 (2) Plaintiff K.K. is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE from this 26 action for failure to seek appointment of an appropriate guardian ad 27 litem; 28 (3) Plaintiff Galaviz’s claims against Defendant Begay in Claims Six and 2 Seven of the FAC are DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND, 3 and all other claims made by Plaintiff Galaviz against Defendant Begay 4 in the FAC are DISMISSED WITH LEAVE TO AMEND; and 5 6 (4) Plaintiff Galaviz is GRANTED LEAVE TO FILE a Second 7 Amended Complaint consistent with the Report and Recommendation 8 within thirty (30) days of this Order. 9 10 Lo LJ /——_ 11 | Dated: September 11, 2024 □□ Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28