Arthur Edward Ezor v. Jackie Lacey

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 ARTHUR EDWARD EZOR, ) NO. CV 19-4020-JVS (AGR) ) 11 Plaintiff, ) ) ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND 12 v. ) RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED ) STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 13 JACKIE LACEY, et al., ) ) 14 Defendants. ) ) 15 16 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the complaint, records on 17 file, the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge 18 (“Report”) and the Objections. Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of 19 those portions of the Report to which the parties have objected. The Court accepts 20 the Report’s findings and recommendations except as set forth below. 21 Plaintiff argues that the Report is void because the magistrate judge is 22 disqualified from this case. The Report states that Plaintiff’s three requests for 23 recusal have been denied in orders dated August 15, 2019, December 5, 2019, and 24 January 7, 2020.1 (Report at 10 n.5; Orders, Dkt. Nos. 26, 37, 45.) Plaintiff’s 25 objection is…