1 2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 WESTERN DIVISION 11

12 MAYRA LANGARCIA, No. 2:25-cv-00804-JFW-BFM 13 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING 14 v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND 15 INLAND VALLEY HUMANE RECOMMENDATION SOCIETY, 16 Defendant. 17

18 Pursuant to

, the Court has reviewed the Third Amended 19 Complaint, the records and files herein, the Magistrate Judge’s Report and 20 Recommendation, and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and 21 Recommendation. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions 22 of the Report and Recommendation to which objections have been made. The 23 Court accepts the recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 24 To the extent that the Objections include facts that were not included in 25 Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint, the Court exercises its discretion not to 26 consider those facts. Jones v. Blanas,

(9th Cir. 2004). First, 27 the Magistrate Judge issued two previous orders highlighting the deficiencies 28 in Plaintiff’s complaints, giving Plaintiff adequate opportunity to present these 1 || consider these facts, they are too conclusory to find that Plaintiff has stated a 2 || Fourteenth Amendment claim. Ashcroft v. Iqbal,

(2009) 3 || (Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere 4 || conclusory statements, do not suffice.”) (citation omitted). 5 ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED: 6 1. The Report and Recommendation is accepted. 7 2. The Third Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to 8 || amend. 9 3. Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice. 10 4, The Court Clerk shall serve this Order and the Judgment on all 11 || counsel or parties of record. 12 13 || DATED: May 23, 2025 14 : Lb = PNORABLE JOHN F. WALTER ITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28