Vadim Stanley Miesegaes v. Malinda Durnen
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 12 VADIM STANLEY MIESEGAES, Case No. CV 20-09945 CJC (RAO)
13 Plaintiff,
14 v. ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS,
CONCLUSIONS, AND
15 MALINDA DURNEN, et al., RECOMMENDATION OF
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE
16 Defendants. JUDGE 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed Plaintiff’s First Amended 19 Complaint (“FAC”), Dkt. No. 9, the Report and Recommendation of the United 20 States Magistrate Judge (“Report”), Dkt. No. 11, Plaintiff’s Objections, Dkt. No. 14, 21 and all other records and files herein. Further, the Court has made a de novo 22 determination of those portions of the Report to which objections have been made. 23 Although the Court is not persuaded by the Objections, the Court briefly addresses 24 one of Plaintiff’s arguments. 25 Plaintiff argues that official capacity claims must be dismissed without 26 prejudice under Freeman v. Oakland Unified School District, 179 F.3d 846, 847 (9th 27 Cir. 1999). In Freeman, the…