Christopher Bunker v. Joseph Buccinio

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CHRISTOPHER BUNKER, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-09263-FLA (DFMx) 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT 12 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JOSEPH BUCCINIO, et al., JUDGE 14 Defendants. [DKT. 123] 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”). Dkt. 123 (“R&R”). Furthermore, the court has conducted a de novo review of the objections that were filed. Dkts. 124 (“Hannah’s Obj.’s”), 125 (“Pls.’ Obj.’s”).

21 The Report recommends granting in part and denying in part Plaintiffs Christopher Bunker, Teresa Bunker, Adam Bunker, and Casey Bunker’s (“Plaintiffs”) motion for leave to file a third amended complaint (“Motion”). See R&R; Dkt. 104.

24 The objections to the Report do not warrant a change to the Magistrate Judge’s findings or recommendation.

26 Plaintiffs object that the Magistrate Judge is biased or has engaged in misconduct. Pls.’ Obj.’s at 2. This objection is conclusory and lacks evidentiary support. See United States v. $292,888.04 in U.S. Currency, 54 F.3d 564, 566 (9th | Cir. 1995) (“merely conclusory allegations” are “insufficient to support a claim of | [judicial] bias or prejudice”) (citing United States v. Sibla, 624 F.2d 864, 868 (9th Cir. | 1980)); Yagman v. Republic Insurance, 987 F.2d 622, 626 (9th Cir. 1993) (merely || speculative assertions of invidious motive are insufficient to show judicial bias).

5 | Plaintiffs’ objections are OVERRULED.

6 Defendant Randal P. Hannah (“Hannah’’) objects that amendment should not be || allowed because it would be futile. Hannah’s Obj.’s at 3-6. However, the court | concurs with the Report that justice requires amendment. See R&R at 3 (explaining | the court should freely give leave when justice so requires), 8 (explaining amendment | will facilitate resolution on the merits). Thus, Hannah’s objection is OVERRULED | without prejudice to renewal of the arguments for dismissal if Plaintiffs file a proper | third amended complaint.

13 Accordingly, the court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations | of the United States Magistrate Judge. The Motion (Dkt. 104) is GRANTED IN | PART and DENIED IN PART. Plaintiffs are GRANTED leave to file a third | amended complaint within twenty-one (21) days of this Order that does not include | Defendants Michelle H. Gilleece, Candice Garcia-Rodrigo, Lisa M. Rogan, or | Douglas K. Mann.

20 IT IS SO ORDERED.

22 | Dated: December 2, 2024 25 FERNANDO L. AENLLE-ROCHA United States District Judge