David Lack v. Dr. Posner et al, No. 2:2022cv02955 - Document 72 (C.D. Cal. 2023)

Court Description: ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE by Judge R. Gary Klausner for NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 41 , NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION to Dismiss Case 32 , NOTICE OF MOTIO N AND MOTION to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [ECF No. 5]; Memorandum of Points and Authorities in Support 51 IT IS ORDERED that: the Judicial Defendants Motion, the Sanger Motion, and the CDCR Defendants Motion are GRANTED; and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with and without prejudice. [SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS.] (es)

Download PDF
David Lack v. Dr. Posner et al Doc. 72 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 DAVID LACK, Plaintiff 12 13 14 15 Case No. 2:22-cv-02955-RGK (GJS) v. DR. POSNER, et al., ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Defendants. 16 17 18 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the First Amended 19 Complaint [Dkt. 5], all relevant documents filed and lodged in this action, the 20 motion to dismiss filed by Defendants Judge Thomas P. Anderle, Judge Clifford R. 21 Anderson, III, Judge Michael Carrozzo, and Judge Jean M. Dandona [Dkt. 32, 22 “Judicial Defendants Motion”] and the related briefing and filings by the parties 23 [Dkts. 33, 58, and 61], the motion to dismiss filed by Defendant Robert Sanger 24 [Dkts. 41-42, “Sanger Motion”], the motion to dismiss filed by Defendants C. 25 Koenig, D. Moeller, S. Posson, and R. Skipper-Dota [Dkt. 51, the “CDCR Motion”] 26 and related briefing and filings by the parties [Dkts. 63, 66], the Report and 27 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge [Dkt. 68, “Report”], Plaintiff’s 28 Objection to the Report [Dkt. 69], and Defendant Sanger’s Reply [Dkt. 71]. Dockets.Justia.com 1 Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the Court has 2 conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Report to which objections have 3 been stated. 4 The Court has carefully considered all of the arguments raised in the 5 Objection to the Report. Having completed its review, the Court accepts the 6 findings, conclusions, and recommendations set forth in the Report. 7 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: the Judicial Defendants Motion, the 8 Sanger Motion, and the CDCR Defendants Motion are GRANTED; the First 9 Amended Complaint is dismissed without leave to amend and with prejudice as to 10 Claims I, II, III, V, and VI and Defendants Judge Thomas P. Anderle, Judge Clifford 11 R. Anderson, III, Judge Michael Carrozzo, Judge Jean M. Dandona, Robert Sanger, 12 Neil Levinson, C. Koenig, D. Moeller, S. Posson, and R. Skipper-Dota, and without 13 prejudice as to Claim IV and Defendants Brian Cota, Jeff Sanger, Santa Barbara 14 Sheriff Moennro [sic], CTF Prison Transportation, CTF Prison Doctor John Doe, 15 and two John Doe Defendants alleged to be Santa Barbara Sheriff’s Department 16 Deputies; and Judgment shall be entered dismissing this action with and without 17 prejudice. 18 LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. 19 20 21 22 DATE: June 1, 2023 __________________________________ R. GARY KLAUSNER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.