Opinion
No. CV 5:20-cv-00449-JVS (GJS)
07-23-2020
BRIAN FINANDER and MARLENE FINANDER, Plaintiffs v. RIVERSIDE COUNTY [California], et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint [Dkt. 27] and all pleadings and documents filed and lodged in this action, including: the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint brought by Defendant County of Riverside [Dkt. 33, "County Motion"] and the related Opposition and Reply [Dkts. 46, 58]; the motion to dismiss the First Amended Complaint brought by Defendant Superior Court of California, County of Riverside [Dkt. 59, "Superior Court Motion"] and the related Opposition and Reply [Dkts. 65-66]; the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 68, "Report"]; and Plaintiffs' Objections to the Report [Dkt. 69]. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have been stated.
Having completed its review, the Court concludes that nothing in the Objections calls into question any aspect of the Report, nor does anything in the Objections warrant discussion. The Court accepts the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report. In addition, the Court finds that the Superior Court is not a person for purposes of civil rights statute 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Will v. Michigan Dept. of State Police, 491 U.S. 58, 66 (1989).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) the County Motion and the Superior Court Motion are GRANTED; (2) the First Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend; and (3) this action is dismissed with prejudice.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. DATE: July 23, 2020
/s/_________
JAMES V. SELNA
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE