1 2

3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 KAHASAYE ARAYA, Case No. 2:25-cv-00591-SB-AGR 9 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS 10 AND RECOMMENDATION OF v. MAGISTRATE JUDGE 11

12

LOS ANGELES COUNTY CHILD

13 SUPPORT SERVICES

DEPARTMENT,

14 Defendants 15

16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Complaint, records 18 on file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 19 (R&R) and the objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 20 those portions of the R&R to which objections have been made. The findings and recommendations of the R&R are accepted in full. 21 Plaintiff has asserted numerous objections that largely reiterate previously 22 asserted arguments and fail to demonstrate any material error. To the extent that he 23 attempts to recast his claims or present new theories (see, e.g., Dkt. No. 55 at 11, 24 16, 26, 30), this is improper. See Greenhow v. Secretary of HHS, 863 F.2d 633, 25 638 (9th Cir. 1988) (“[A]llowing parties to litigate fully their case before the 26 magistrate and, if unsuccessful, to change their strategy and present a different 27 theory to the district court would frustrate the purpose of the Magistrates Act. We 28 1 | do not believe that the Magistrates Act was intended to give litigants an opportunity 2 | to run one version of their case past the magistrate, then another past the district 3 | court.”). In any event, all claims asserted—even as recharacterized—are barred by 4 || the Younger abstention doctrine. 5 Plaintiff's objection to the dismissal of his claims without leave to amend is 6 also meritless. Dkt. No. 55 at 23. When reviewing a pro se complaint, “district 4 courts are only required to grant leave to amend if a complaint can possibly be saved.” Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir. 2000). For the reasons 9 stated in the R&R, the deficiencies in the complaint cannot be cured, and Plaintiff

10 has not demonstrated otherwise. The Court therefore accepts the findings and recommendation of the R&R. IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that 12 (1) the Los Angeles County Child Support Services Department’s motion to dismiss the complaint is GRANTED; (2) Claims One, Three, Four, Fourteen, and Fifteen are dismissed with Is prejudice; 16 (3) The remaining claims are dismissed without prejudice and without leave 17 | to amend pursuant to Younger abstention; and 18 (4) Plaintiff's ex parte application to terminate income withholding and cease 19 | child support enforcement is DENIED. 20 DATED: October 23, 2025 Ors. 22 STANLEY BLUMENFELD, JR. 74 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 28