Opinion
Case No. LA CV 16-01069-VBF-PLA
12-29-2016
JOSEPH L. SHALANT, Plaintiff, v. STATE BAR OF CALIFORNIA, Defendants.
ORDER
Overruling Plaintiff's Objections; Adopting Report & Recommendation; Granting Defendants' Motion to Dismiss; Dismissing the SAC With Prejudice; Directing Entry of Separate Final Judgment; Terminating and Closing the Action (JS-6)
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the Second Amended Complaint ("SAC") (CM/ECF Document ("Doc") 25); defendants' corrected motion to dismiss and accompanying memorandum and declaration (Docs 27-29); plaintiff's opposition brief and accompanying declaration and request for judicial notice (Docs 34-36); plaintiff's supplemental opposition brief (Doc 40; defendants' reply brief (Doc 38); defendants' objections to plaintiff's request for judicial notice (Doc 39); plaintiff's sur-reply brief (Doc 48); the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") issued by the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(1) and 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) on October 5, 2016 (Doc 44); plaintiff's objections to the R&R (Doc 47), the defendants' response to those objections (Doc 54); and the applicable law. Plaintiff did not submit or seek leave to file a reply to defendants' response to objections.
"As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the R&R to which petitioner has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the . . . R&R." Rael v. Foulk, No. LA CV 14-02987 Doc. 47, 2015 WL 4111295, *1 (C.D. Cal. July 7, 2015), COA denied, No. 15-56205 (9th Cir. Feb. 18, 2016).
"The Court finds discussion of [the] objections to be unnecessary on this record. The Magistrates Act 'merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.'" It does not require the district judge to provide a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. California AG, No. SA CV 12-00432, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (Fairbank, J.) (quoting United States ex rel. Walterspiel v. Bayer AG, 639 F. App'x 164, 168-69 (4th Cir.) (per curiam) ("The district court complied with this requirement. Accordingly, we find no procedural error in the district court's decision not to address specifically Walterspiel's objections."), cert. denied, — U.S. —, 137 S. Ct. 162 (2016)) (brackets & quotation marks omitted). This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing.
Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement his recommendations.
ORDER
Plaintiff Shalant's objection [Doc #47] is OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation [Doc #44] is ADOPTED.
Defendants' motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint [Doc # 26] is GRANTED.
The Second Amended Complaint [Doc #25] is DISMISSED with prejudice.
Document #30 is DENIED as moot.
Final judgment will be entered in favor of defendants consistent with this order. "As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 58(a), the Court will enter judgment by separate document." Toy v. Soto, 2015 WL 2168744, *1 (C.D. Cal. May 5, 2015) (Fairbank, J.) (citing Jayne v. Sherman, 706 F.3d 994, 1009 (9th Cir. 2013)) (n.1 omitted), COA denied, No. 15-55866 (9th Cir. Jan. 20, 2016).
This action is DISMISSED with prejudice.
The case SHALL BE TERMINATED and closed (JS-6). Dated: Thursday, December 29, 2016
/s/_________
Valerie Baker Fairbank
Senior United States District Judge