1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 EURAL DUANE DEBBS, SR., Case No. CV 23-4069-DMG (AS) 11 Plaintiff,

ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

12 v.

CONCLUSIONS AND

13 GOLDEN PALACE ASSISTED RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 LIVING FACILITIES, et al.,

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

15 Defendants. 16

17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. section 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, 18 all of the records herein, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate 19 Judge. After having made a de novo determination of the portions of the Report and 20 Recommendation to which Objections were directed, the Court concurs with and accepts the 21 findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge. 22 Plaintiff objects that he should be granted “the Legal Right to fix or repair [a]ny deficiencies 23 to this case” because he “has suffered serious harm as well as injuries [a]s a result of actions of 24 these defendants.” [Doc. # 57 at 1–2.] Plaintiff has already been afforded an opportunity, however, 25 to correct his pleading deficiencies, with detailed instructions, but has failed to do so. The 26 Magistrate Judge gave detailed instructions to Plaintiff that, in order to seek relief under 42 U.S.C. 27 § 1983, he must plausibly allege that Defendants, private parties, engaged in action that could fairly 28 1 || be attributable to the state. [Doc. #21 at 6-9.] The Magistrate Judge also instructed Plaintiff that 2 || he could not state a claim based on “merely private conduct, no matter how discriminatory or 3 || wrong.” Jd. at 6. Despite these instructions, Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint that realleged 4 || Defendants’ wrongful private conduct and made only a conclusory allegation of a conspiracy. 5 || [Doc. # 48.] Further leave to amend is not warranted in these circumstances. See Curry v. Yelp 6 □□ Inc., 875 F.3d 1219, 1228 (9th Cir. 2017) (“[W]here the plaintiff has previously been granted leave 7 || to amend and has subsequently failed to add the requisite particularity to [his] claims, the district 8 || court’s discretion to deny leave to amend is particularly broad.”) (citation omitted); see also 9 || Kendall v. Visa U.S.A., Inc., 518 F.3d 1042, 1051 (9th Cir. 2008) (leave to file a Second Amended 10 |} Complaint was not warranted where First Amended Complaint made only conclusory allegations 11 || ofa conspiracy); Limcaco v. Wynn, 2023 WL 154965, at *3 (9th Cir. 2023) (same). 12 Finally, as supporting authority, Plaintiff cites Zixiang Li v. Kerry, 710 F.3d 995, 998-99 13 || (9th Cir. 2013). [Doc. # 57 at 2.] The portion of this decision which Plaintiff cites sets out the 14 || pleading standard, which the Report and Recommendation properly recognized and applied. [Doc. 15 || #S6atS.] 16 In sum, Plaintiff's Objections do not cause the Court to reject the Magistrate Judge’s 17 || conclusions and recommendations. Accordingly, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings 18 || and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge in the Report and Recommendation. IT IS ORDERED that the First Amended Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT LEAVE 20 | TO AMEND for failure to state a claim, and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with at prejudice.! IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk serve copies of this Order and the 22 Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation on Plaintiff. 23 24 || DATED: September 30, 2024 □□□ An Au

DOLLY M. GEE

25 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 26 27 ' Accordingly, Plaintiff’s motion for a scheduling order and trial date [Doc. # 53] is 28 DENIED as moot.