1 2

3

4

5

6

7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

8

9 JOSEPH ROSE, aCase No. 8:25-01401 CV (ADS) 10

11 Plaintiff, ORDER ACCEPTING UNITED

STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S

12 v. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

13 ARTIANO SHINOFF APC, et al., [DOC. # 66] 14 Defendants. 15

16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s Complaint 17 (Doc. #1), the First Amended Complaint (Doc. # 19), the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 18 19 # 20), Plaintiff’s Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 23), the Reply (Doc. 20 # 26) the Report and Recommendation of United State Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 21 22 23 24 1 66, “R&R”), Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. ## 69, 71), and Defendant’s 2 Reply to Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (Doc. # 76), and the record in the case.1 3 The Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report 4 and Recommendation to which objections were made. To the extent the R&R 5 recommends the dismissal of Plaintiff’s state court claims with prejudice, the Court 6 7 sustains Plaintiff’s objection. For those state court claims over which the Court 8 declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction (claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, and 10) the 9 Court dismisses these claims without prejudice. Otherwise, Plaintiff’s objections 10 are overruled and the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the 11 Magistrate Judge. The Court notes that the magistrate judge properly considered 12 Plaintiff’s operative complaint in the R&R.2 13 14 The Court further notes that Plaintiffs’ various challenges to the magistrate 15 judge’s involvement in this case are without merit. He identifies no basis for 16 recusal or disqualification under 28 U.S.C. §§ 144 or 455, which require an 17

18 1 Plaintiff’s deadline to object to the December 2, 2025 R&R was December 16, 2025. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. Without leave of Court, Plaintiff filed a rebuttal to Defendant’s Reply to Plaintiff’s 19 Objections to the R&R and a request for judicial notice regarding the R&R. Doc. # 77, 80. These amount to untimely and improper objections, and the Court therefore STRIKES them from the 20 record. 21 2 See Doc. # 66 at 7 (“The Court finds that the arguments in the Motion and the Opposition, despite being directed to the initial complaint, are equally relevant to the FAC. In addition, the 22 Court screens pro se complaints brought by plaintiffs proceeding in forma pauperis to identify the cognizable claims or dismiss those that . . . fail to state a claim upon which relief can be 23 granted. 28 U.S.C. §1915. Therefore, the Court may dismiss claims based on screening as well.”). 24 1 || extrajudicial source of bias such that a reasonable person would question the judge’s impartiality; adverse or even repeated judicial rulings are insufficient as a 3 matter of law. United States v. Hernandez, 109 F.3d 1450, 1453—54 (9th Cir. 4 1997); Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 554-55 (1994). Nor does Plaintiff's 5 6 refusal to consent have any bearing on the R&R, as referrals under 28 U.S.C. §

7 || 636(b)(1) do not require party consent. Holder v. Holder, 392 F.3d 1009, 1022 (9th 8 || Cir. 2004); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(expressly providing for a recommended disposition ? ~without the parties’ consent’). 10 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 11 1. The R&R (Doc. # 66) is accepted as modified above: 12 2. Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint is dismissed WITHOUT LEAVE 3 TO AMEND; 3. Claims 1—7 and 10 are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to 14 Plaintiff re-filing these claims in another court with appropriate jurisdiction. Claims 8 and 9 are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. 15 4. Judgment is to be entered accordingly; 6 5. All other matters are TERMINATED.

17 IT IS SO ORDERED. ig || Dated: 1/8/26 a Valonzusla

HON. CYNTHIA VALENZUELA

19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24