1 2 3 4 5

6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 CONSTANTINO BASILE, Case No. 2:18-cv-08604 CJC (ADS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND

RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES

14 THE LOS ANGELES FILM SCHOOL, MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DISMISSING LLC, et al., CASE 15 Defendants. 16 17 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the 18 records and files herein, including the Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) dated 19 September 30, 2019 [Dkt. No. 179] and Plaintiff’s Objections to the R&R (“Objections”) 20 [Dkt. No. 181] and related documents. 21 Nothing in the Objections refutes the Magistrate Judge’s finding that all claims in 22 the current case are barred by res judicata, collateral estoppel, basic pleading principles, 23 litigation privilege, and frivolousness. See [Dkt. No. 179, p. 3]. First, Plaintiff requests 24 de novo review of the Complaint pursuant to “Rule 59.” [Dkt. No. 181, p. 9]. However, 1 after a Report and Recommendation has been issued by the assigned magistrate judge, 2 the appropriate route for Plaintiff to challenge the Magistrate Judge’s findings and 3 recommendation is by filing objections, as he as done. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). 4 Plaintiff also restates allegations from the Complaint and asserts new allegations related 5 to the purported conspiracy described in his Complaint. [Dkt. No. 181, pp. 9-14].

6 Second, Plaintiff raises objections to specific portions of the R&R, but these objections 7 do nothing more than state a disagreement with the result. Nothing in Plaintiff’s 8 objections raises any issue that was not clearly addressed in the R&R. [Dkt. No. 181, 9 pp. 14-20]. 10 Further, Plaintiff has not presented any arguments as to why he should not be 11 deemed a vexatious litigant. Plaintiff merely argues that the dismissal of his prior 12 claims in Basile v. Southwest Airlines, Case No. 2:15-cv-01883-RFB-VCF (D. Nev.), was 13 improper. However, Plaintiff appealed that decision to the Ninth Circuit, which 14 affirmed the district court’s dismissal. Basile v. Southwest Airlines, 765 F. App’x 145 15 (9th Cir. 2019). 16 As such, after thorough analysis and consideration of the Complaint, the Motions

17 to Dismiss, and the Report and Recommendation, and having performed a de novo 18 review of those portions to which objections were made, the Court concurs with and 19 accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 20 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED: 21 1. The United States Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, 22 [Dkt. No. 179], is accepted; 23 2. Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss [Dkt. Nos. 28, 34, 36, 40, 45, 46, 50, 51, 24 52, 57, 61, 85, 101, 105, 107, 116, 122, 131, 136] are granted; 1 3. The case is dismissed with prejudice; 2 4, A separate order is to be issued deeming Plaintiff a vexatious litigant; and 3 5. Judgment is to be entered accordingly. 4 Ke fe 5 ||DATED: October 17, 2019 ff OY

THE HONORABLE CORMAG/J. CARNEY

6 United States District J udge’ 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24