HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK Senior United States District Judge
ORDER
Overruling Plaintiff's Objections; Adopting Report & Recommendation; Denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss
[Doc # 27]
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the Court has reviewed the records in this case, the applicable law, and the well-reasoned Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the United States Magistrate Judge. As required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has engaged in de novo review of the portions of the Report and Recommendation ("R&R") to which plaintiff has specifically objected and finds no defect of law, fact, or logic in the R&R. The Court finds discussion of the objections to be unnecessary on this record. "The Magistrates Act 'merely requires the district judge to make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendation to which objection is made.'" It does not require a written explanation of the reasons for rejecting objections. See MacKenzie v. Calif. AG, 2016 WL 5339566, *1 (C.D. Cal. Sept. 21, 2016) (citation omitted). "This is particularly true where, as here, the objections are plainly unavailing." Smith v. Calif. Jud. Council, 2016 WL 6069179, *2 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 17, 2016). Accordingly, the Court will accept the Magistrate Judge's factual findings and legal conclusions and implement the R&R's recommendations.
ORDER
Plaintiff's objections [Doc # 40] are OVERRULED.
The Report and Recommendation [Doc # 39] is ADOPTED.
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss the First Amended Complaint [Doc # 27] is DENIED. This denial is without prejudice to Defendants' re-raising the issues of (1) Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies, and (2) Qualified Immunity, at a later stage in these proceedings.
The case remains open and referred to the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: August 12, 2019
/s/_________
HON. VALERIE BAKER FAIRBANK
Senior United States District Judge