Christopher Maurice McDowell v. Campos

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTOPHER MAURICE Case No. 2:23-cv-08680-SB-AJR

MCDOWELL,

Plaintiff,

ORDER ACCEPTING, AS

MODIFIED, THE U.S.

v.

MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND

Sgt. Campos, et al.,

RECOMMENDATIONS

Defendants.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, the

records and files herein, the U.S. Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation

(R&R), and Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation.

In his objections, Plaintiff merely restates the allegations of his Fourth

Amended Complaint and raises no specific objection to any portion of the R&R.

Dkt. No. 43. The Court, therefore, need not review the R&R de novo and adopts it

on this ground. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (requiring that a party “file specific written

objections” to the recommendations and mandating de novo review of only the

portions “properly objected to”); see also Jones v. PGA Tour, Inc., 668 F. Supp. 3d

907, 916 (N.D. Cal. 2023) (“Only objections that reference specific portions of the

report and recommendation will trigger de novo review.”). In the alternative, the

Court adopts the R&R based on its review of the record, finding that the R&R is

well reasoned and well supported. See Trieu v. Fox, No. 12-CV-03365-VBF, 2017

WL 522994, at *2 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 8, 2017) (reviewing an R&R, despite the lack of

objection, “[o]ut of an abundance of caution”).

Accordingly, the Court accepts and adopts the Magistrate Judge’s findings,

conclusions, and recommendations, except that it declines to grant leave to amend

to raise an individual capacity claim. The Magistrate Judge explained the

deficiencies in the pleadings four times, identified that Plaintiff could raise an

individual capacity claim against Sgt. Campos or another officer, and indicated

what he would need to allege to support such a claim—i.e., “specific facts showing

their personal involvement.” See, e.g., Dkt. Nos. 5, 8, 24, 32. Yet, in his four

amended pleadings, Plaintiff failed to cure the identified deficiencies, instead

repeating the same insufficient allegations. Indeed, Plaintiff’s objections to the

R&R are submitted in the form of what amounts to a fifth amended complaint—

and yet he has not come any closer to stating any individual claim. Once again, he

has done little more than repeat the deficient allegations. Dkt. No. 43.

In short, Plaintiff has had numerous chances to amend his pleading to cure

the deficiencies identified by the Magistrate Judge. After his “repeated failure to

cure deficiencies by amendment,” there is no reason to believe that granting yet

another opportunity would advance this litigation. See Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S.

178, 182 (1962). On the contrary, even after receiving the R&R, Plaintiff

continues to present a deficient pleading. Under these circumstances, allowing

leave to amend would be futile. Thus, the Court dismisses the Fourth Amended

Complaint without leave to amend. See Metzler Inv. GMBH v. Corinthian

Colleges, Inc., 540 F.3d 1049, 1072 (9th Cir. 2008) (“[T]he district court’s

discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad where plaintiff has

previously amended the complaint.”) (quotation omitted); Brown v. Fitzpatrick,

667 F. App’x 267 (9th Cir. 2016) (finding no abuse of discretion in dismissing pro

se action without leave to amend after one opportunity to amend).

ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED:

1. The R&R is accepted as modified.

2. The Fourth Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend.

3. Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with prejudice.

4. The Court Clerk shall serve this Order and the Judgment on all counsel or

parties of record.

___________________________

Date: May 30, 2025

Stanley Blumenfeld, Jr.

United States District Judge