UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

ALBERT KIRK JONES, et al., Case No. 2:23-cv-04571-JLS (SK)

Plaintiffs, ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT v. AND RECOMMENDATION TO (1)

GRANT IN PART DEFENDANTS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

THE CITY OF LOS ANGELES, et

JUDGMENT; (2) DENY

al., PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR

PARTIAL SUMMARY

Defendants.

JUDGMENT; AND (3) DISMISS

PLAINTIFFS’ SUPPLEMENTAL

STATE-LAW CLAIMS WITHOUT

PREJUDICE

In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the attached Report and Recommendation to grant in part Defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment, deny Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, and dismiss Plaintiffs’ state-law claims without prejudice (ECF 123), Plaintiffs’ Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF 124), and any pertinent records as needed. Having reviewed de novo those specific portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiffs have timely and properly objected, the Court concludes that nothing in the Objections affects or alters the material findings and conclusions set forth in the Report and Recommendation. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). If nothing else, Plaintiffs have neither properly and timely alleged a claim for municipal liability against the City of Los Angeles, nor have they produced any evidence sufficient to create a genuine dispute about whether the City has a municipal policy, practice, or custom that was the cause of Plaintiffs’ alleged constitutional injuries under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. See Monell v. New York City Dep't of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658, 694-95 (1978); Dougherty v. City of Covina, 654 F.3d 892, 900 (9th Cir. 2011). The Court therefore accepts the material findings and conclusions in the Report and Recommendation and adopts the recommendation. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Judgment will be entered accordingly consistent with that recommendation.

IT ISSO ORDERED.

~ ol DATED: August 20, 2025

JOSEPHINE L. STATON

United States District Judge