UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DAYNA R. CATCHINGS, CV 19-9480 DSF (AGR) Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et MAGISTRATE JUDGE al., Defendants.

Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the complaint and amended complaints, including the operative Second Amended Complaint, Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgement (“Motion”), Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (“Report”), Plaintiff’s “Response in Opposition to the Proposed Recommendation,” which the Court construes as Objections to the Report (“Objections”), and other relevant records on file. The Court has conducted a de novo review of the portions of the Report to which Objections were directed. Although not required, the Court briefly addresses the following. See United States v. Ramos,

(9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v. Masaitis,

(9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report and recommendation). Contrary to Plaintiff’s assertion, Defendants did not “default[]” or waive defenses by failing to file a reply brief in support of their Motion. (Objections at 1-2, 10). A party “may” file a reply brief but is not required to do so. Local Rule 7- 10. As such, the Court accepts and adopts the Report. Accordingly, it is ordered that: 1. The Objections are OVERRULED. 2. Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED in favor of Defendants Abner and the City. 3. Judgment be entered DISMISSING this action without prejudice as to Defendant Benson and with prejudice as to all other Defendants. 4. The Clerk serve this Order, the Judgment, and the Report on all counsel or parties of record.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Date: January 23, 2025 ALokle A. Jloerr Honorable Dale 8. Fischer United States District Judge