The opinion
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 DARNELL BLACK, SR., Case No. CV 18-00793-RGK (RAO)
12 Plaintiff,
13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED
14 R. Caputo, et al., STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
15 Defendants.
16
17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended
18 Complaint (“SAC”), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, all of the other records and files
19 herein, and the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge
20 (“Report”) issued on December 16, 2019. Further, the Court has made a de novo
21 determination of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made.
22 Included among Plaintiff’s objections to the Report is a new claim of an ADA
23 violation. When a claim is asserted for the first time in objections to the Report and
24 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge, the Court has discretion
25 whether to consider it. Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744-45 (9th Cir. 2002). Here,
26 the Court exercises its discretion not to consider the claim because, as with the SAC’s
27 Section 1983 claims addressed in the Report, the new ADA claim is pleaded in a
28 conclusory fashion.
1 Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts and adopts the findings, conclusions,
2 || and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.
3 IT IS ORDERED that Plaintiff's Second Amended Complaint is DISMISSED
4 || with prejudice.
5
6 | DATED: January 21, 2020
79 lactone
g R. GARY KLAUSNER
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28