1 2

3

4

5

6 7 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10

11 12 DOMINIQUE DANIELS, Case No. 8:21-cv-00223-CJC-MAR 13 Plaintiff, 14 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS

AND RECOMMENDATION OF

15 WAYNE J. DIXON ET AL., UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE

JUDGE

16 Defendant(s). 17 18 19 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 20 Complaint, the relevant records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the 21 United States Magistrate Judge. The Court has engaged in de novo review of those 22 portions of the Report to which Plaintiff has objected. The Court overrules Plaintiff’s 23 objections and accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. 24 25 1. The Magistrate Judge did not err in ruling on Plaintiff’s objections to the 26 admissibility of evidence that Defendants proffered in support of summary judgment, 27 including without limitation lack of foundation, and to the extent that any evidentiary 1 Fed. Credit Union, 473 F. App’x 534, 536 n.1 (9th Cir.2012); Jeffries v. Las Vegas Metro. 2 Police Dep’t, 713 F. App’x 549, 549–51 (9th Cir. 2017); Bohnert v. Roman Cath. Archbishop 3 of S.F., 136 F. Supp. 3d 1094, 1111 (N.D. Cal. 2015). 4 5 2. The Magistrate Judge ruled on Plaintiff’s objections under Federal Rules 6 of Evidence 602, 801, 802, and 1002 to the evidence that Defendants proffered to the 7 extent that the Magistrate Judge considered the evidence. (See Dkt. 122 at 9 8 [“Accordingly, the parties’ objections that are based on relevance or the admissibility 9 of the form of evidence are unnecessary and overruled as moot.”].) 10 11 3. The Magistrate Judge properly considered the evidence set forth in the 12 moving and opposing papers and the parts of the record cited therein and did not 13 need to comb the record for other evidence. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(3); Carmen v. 14 S.F. Unified Sch. Dist., 237 F.3d 1026, 1029 (9th Cir. 2001). 15 16 4. The purported facts that Plaintiff raises in her objections to the Report 17 and Recommendation are not material facts in dispute. Those facts either are not 18 material to the legal standards governing Plaintiff’s claims, are not supported by 19 evidence that actually creates a genuine dispute, or are versions of events so “blatantly 20 contradicted by” other, unchallenged parts of the record such “that no reasonable jury 21 could believe” them. Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 380 (2007).

22 5. The Magistrate Judge did not improperly rely on material facts in dispute 23 or draw improper inferences in the factual findings supporting the recommendation 24 in favor of granting summary judgment. 25 // 26 // 27 1 IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion for Summary 2 | Judgment is GRANTED. 3 4+ | Dated: May 4, 2023 Ko ye i ° HONORABLE CORMAC J. CARNEY 6 United States District Judge 5 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28