1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10

11 JORDAN NICHOLAS SUKUT, Case No. EDCV 23-1480-WDK (SSC)

12 Plaintiff

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT

13 v. AND RECOMMENDATION OF

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

14 COUNTY OF SAN JUDGE BERNARDINO, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 18 Complaint (“FAC”) (Docket No. 12), the Motions to Dismiss and Strike filed by 19 Defendants San Bernardino County and San Bernardino County Flood Control 20 District (Docket Nos. 13, 14), Opposition and Reply to the Motions (Docket Nos. 21 17-19), the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 22 (“Report,” Docket No. 28), Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report (“Objections,” 23 Docket No. 29), and the other relevant records on file. The Court has engaged in a 24 de novo review of those portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. 25 Although not required, the Court briefly makes the following observations. 26 See United States v. Ramos, 65 F.4th 427, 434 (9th Cir. 2023) (“the district court 27 ha[s] no obligation to provide individualized analysis of each objection”); Wang v. 28 Masaitis, 416 F.3d 992, 1000 (9th Cir. 2005) (affirming a cursory district court order 1 summarily adopting, without addressing any objections, a magistrate judge’s report 2 and recommendation). 3 The Court acknowledges Defendants’ argument regarding service on 4 Defendant Snoke (Docket No. 29 at 6), but it declines to reach an issue raised for the 5 first time in the Objections. See Akhtar v. Mesa, 698 F.3d 1202, 1208 (9th Cir. 6 2012) (district court is not required to consider arguments presented for first time in 7 objections); Lee v. City of Los Angeles, 250 F.3d 668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001) 8 (generally, the court must limit its review to the operative pleading). Should 9 Defendant Snoke desire to challenge the adequacy of service on him, he may do so 10 through a properly noticed motion to dismiss under Rule 4(m) of the Federal Rules 11 of Civil Procedure, not via objections. 12 The Court further acknowledges Defendants’ request that Plaintiff’s state-law 13 claims be dismissed with prejudice because the related state-court action has been 14 dismissed. (Docket No. 29 at 6-7; Docket No. 29-1 at 2-3). However, it is not clear 15 that the dismissed state action contained all the same state-law claims that Plaintiff 16 presented here and/or that there is no means by which he might be permitted to 17 present any of those state-law claims in a state-court action. (Docket No. 12 at 1; 18 Docket No. 14-1 at 24-31). 19 The Objections are overruled. 20 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: 21 (1) The Report is ACCEPTED and adopted as the Court’s own findings and 22 conclusions; 23 (2) County Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Docket No. 14) is GRANTED 24 IN PART; Plaintiff’s state-law claims are dismissed without prejudice to any state- 25 court action he may be entitled to pursue; 26 (3) County Defendants’ Motion to Strike (Docket No. 13) is GRANTED IN 27 PART consistent with the Report; 28 (4) To the extent Plaintiff requests counsel, the request is DENIED for the 1 || reasons stated in the Report (see Docket No. 28 at 15 n.10); 2 (5) Defendant Hernandez is DISMISSED from this action without prejudice 3 || for Plaintiff's failure to serve him; and (6) this action shall proceed on the FAC as to Plaintiffs federal constitutional 5 || claims only as limited by the Report regarding Defendants’ Motion to Strike. 6 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 9 || Dated: November 20, 2024 Hifrecrene 2 ett □ 10 WILLIAM D. KELLER United States District Judge 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28