district judge did not 12 abuse discretion in refusing to consider factual allegations not presented to the 13 magistrate judge
How later courts described this case
- district judge did not 12 abuse discretion in refusing to consider factual allegations not presented to the 13 magistrate judge
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Case 2:19-cv-07147-JWH-SHK Document 136 Filed 01/18/23 Page 1 of 3 Page ID #:689
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11 ANTHONY CONNERS, Case No. 2:19-cv-07147-JWH-SHK
12 Plaintiff,
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS
13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
14 KATHY, et al., JUDGE
15 Defendants.
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Case 2:19-cv-07147-JWH-SHK Document 136 Filed 01/18/23 Page 2 of 3 Page ID #:690
1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Second Amended
2 Complaint (“SAC”), Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“MTD”) the SAC,
3 Plaintiff’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (“MJP”), the relevant records on
4 file, and the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of the United States
5 Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of
6 the R&R to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court accepts the findings and
7 recommendation of the Magistrate Judge.
8 To the extent that Plaintiff attempts to raise new claims and arguments in his
9 Objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court
10 declines to exercise its discretion to address those new arguments formally. See
11 United States v. Howell, 231 F.3d 615, 631-22 (9th Cir. 2000) (district judge did not
12 abuse discretion in refusing to consider factual allegations not presented to the
13 magistrate judge); see also Brown v. Roe, 279 F.3d 742, 744–45 (9th Cir. 2002)
14 (stating that a district court has discretion, but is not required, to consider evidence
15 or claims presented for the first time in objections to a report and
16 recommendation). Nevertheless, the Court has considered each of Petitioner’s
17 proposed claims and arguments and concludes that they do not warrant further
18 analysis at this time.
19 It is therefore ORDERED as follows:
20 1. Defendants’ MTD claim one from the SAC is GRANTED and
21 Defendant Catherine Giron is DISMISSED from this action.
22 2. Defendants’ MTD claim two from the SAC is DENIED.
23 3. Defendants’ MTD based upon qualified immunity is DENIED.
24
25
26
27
28 2
Case □□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□□ Document 136 Filed 01/18/23 Page 3of3 Page ID #:691
1 4. Plaintiff's MJP is DENIED without prejudice.
2 IT IS SO ORDERED.
4 | Dated: January 18, 2023 VY.
5 HONORABLE JOHN W. HOLCOMB
6 United States District Judge
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28