Case 5:22-cv-00427-FWS-ADS Document 10 Filed 01/23/23 Page 1 of 4 Page ID #:83

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

Case No. 5:22-cv-00427-FWS-ADS 11

12 ABDI MOHAMMED UMAR, ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,

13 CONCLUSIONS AND Plaintiff, RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED 14 STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE [7] 15 v.

16

T. JUSTINO, ET AL.,

17

18 Defendants.

19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:22-cv-00427-FWS-ADS Document 10 Filed 01/23/23 Page 2 of 4 Page ID #:84

1 I. Introduction and Relevant Procedural History

2 Before the Court is the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation issued 3 on December 8, 2022 (the “Report and Recommendation”), (Dkt. 7), regarding the civil 4 rights complaint (the “Complaint”) filed by Plaintiff Abdi Mohammed Umar 5 (“Plaintiff”). The Complaint alleges a First Amendment violation by federal officials 6 under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 7 388 (1971), against Defendant T. Jusino, Defendant T. Ruda, Defendant James 8 Huffman, Defendant Chaplain A. Richards, and Defendant Global Foods (collectively, 9 “Defendants”). (Dkt. 1.) Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable 10 law, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each of the findings 11 of fact and conclusions of law therein. 12 On March 7, 2022, Plaintiff filed the Complaint. (Dkt. 1.) In summary, the 13 Complaint alleges his First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion was 14 violated when Defendants served him products containing pork in his “Suhar” breakfast 15 meal bag. (Dkt. 1 at 4.) 16 On December 8, 2022, the Magistrate Judge issued the Report and 17 Recommendation. (Dkt. 7.) On January 3, 2023, Plaintiff filed an “Objection Notice” 18 to the Report and Recommendation ( “Plaintiff’s Objection Notice”). (Dkt. 9.) 19 II. Analysis 20 “A judge of the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the 21 findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. 22 § 636(b)(1)(C); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) (stating “[t]he district judge must 23 determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge’s disposition that has been 24 properly objected to,” and “[t]he district judge may accept, reject, or modify the 25 recommended disposition; receive further evidence; or return the matter to the 26 magistrate judge with instructions”). Proper objections require “specific written 27 objections to the proposed findings and recommendations” of the magistrate judge. 28 Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). “A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of

-2- Case 5:22-cv-00427-FWS-ADS Document 10 Filed 01/23/23 Page 3 of 4 Page ID #:85

1 those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to

2 which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); see also United States v. Reyna- 3 Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003) (“The statute makes it clear that the 4 district judge must review the magistrate judge’s findings and recommendations de 5 novo if objection is made, but not otherwise.”). Where no objection has been made, 6 arguments challenging a finding are deemed waived. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) 7 (“Within fourteen days after being served with a copy, any party may serve and file 8 written objections to such proposed findings and recommendations as provided by 9 rules of court.”). Moreover, “[o]bjections to a R&R are not a vehicle to relitigate the 10 same arguments carefully considered and rejected by the Magistrate Judge.” Chith v. 11 Haynes, 2021 WL 4744596, at *1 (W.D. Wash. Oct. 12, 2021). 12 In the Report and Recommendation, in summary, the Magistrate Judge made 13 multiple recommendations, including the following: (1) “[D]ismissing the action for 14 failure to state [a]claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1)” and (2) “[D]enying 15 Plaintiff leave to amend.” (Dkt. 7 at 10.) In Plaintiff’s Objection Notice, Plaintiff 16 stated, “I the Petitioner/Injured Party DO NOT CONSENT to the NOTICE OF 17 FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate judge Autumn D. 18 Spaeth, filed 12/8/2022. (Dkt 9. at 1.) Plaintiff also cited several cases in Plaintiff’s 19 Objection Notice and asserted that “I the Petitioner/Injured Party is Requesting that This 20 Honorable Court Grant the Petitioner/Injured Party His Relief Requested under His 21 Civil Rights Action.” (Id.) 22 In this case, after conducting a de novo review of Plaintiff’s Objection Notice 23 on its merits with regard to the Report and Recommendation, the Court agrees with 24 each of the findings of fact and conclusions of law set forth in the Report and 25 Recommendation, including the recommendations (1) “dismissing the action for 26 failure to state [a] claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1915A(b)(1)” and (2) “denying 27 Plaintiff leave to amend.” Accordingly, Plaintiff’s Objection Notice is 28 OVERRULED on its merits.

-3- ase 5:22-cv-00427-FWS-ADS Document 10 Filed 01/23/23 Page 4of4 Page ID #:86

1 In sum, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the record, 2 | including the Report and Recommendation, the Complaint, Plaintiff's Objection 3 | Notice, and the other records of the case. After conducting a de novo determination of 4 | the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which Plaintiff's Objection Notice 5 | pertains, the Court concurs with and accepts the findings and conclusions of the 6 | Magistrate Judge. 7 II. Conclusion 8 Based on the state of the record, as applied to the applicable law, the Court 9 | adopts the Report and Recommendation, including each of the findings of fact and 10 | conclusions of law therein. Accordingly, the Court ORDERS the following: 11 2 (1) Plaintiff's Complaint (Dkt. 1) is DISMISSED FOR FAILURE TO 13 STATE A CLAIM, WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND. □ (2) Judgment is to be entered accordingly.

16 | DATED: January 23, 2023 17 LA /— 18 Hon. Fred W. Slaughter 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

-4-