ORDER AFFIRMING THE ORDERS AND RECOMMENDED DECISION OF
THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND DENYING ALL REMAINING MOTIONS
Before me is a Recommended Decision (ECF No. 21) issued by the Magistrate Judge, recommending that I dismiss the Plaintiff's complaint (ECF No. 1). Also pending before me are: the Plaintiff's motion for change of jurisdiction to federal court, immediate release, and return of his minor children (ECF No. 6); the Plaintiff's objections (ECF No. 14) to the Magistrate Judge's order (ECF No. 12) denying his motion to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, his motion to proceed without signature, and his motion for emergency hearing; the Plaintiff's motion to remove Assistant District Attorney Carlos Diaz for constitutional violations and conflict of interest (ECF No. 16); and a supplemental exhibit the Plaintiff filed in support of his objection to the Magistrate Judge's order denying the motion for emergency hearing (ECF No. 20).
I start with the Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's July 11, 2025 order on the Plaintiff's motions to proceed without prepayment of fees and costs, to
1
2
proceed without signature, and for an emergency hearing. See Order on Pending Motions (ECF No. 12); Obj. to Order Denying Mot. to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees Pursuant to Rule 72(b) (ECF No. 14); Obj. to Order Denying Mot. to File Without Pl.'s Signature Pursuant to Rule 72(b) (ECF No. 14-2); Obj. to Order Denying Mot. for Emergency Hr'g Pursuant to Rule 72(b) (ECF No. 14-3); Suppl. Ex. T (ECF No. 20). I have reviewed and considered the Order on Pending Motions and the Plaintiff's timely objections thereto. The Magistrate Judge's order is neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(a), and therefore the Plaintiff's objections are OVERRULED and the order of the Magistrate Judge is AFFIRMED. Next, on July 31, 2025, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the Court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision (ECF No. 21) on the Plaintiff's complaint and his order (ECF No. 22) denying the Plaintiff's motion for leave for Lynn Torre to proceed as next friend of the Plaintiff (ECF No. 15). The time within which to file objections has expired, and no objections have been filed.1The Magistrate Judge notified the parties that failure to object would waive their right to
de novo review and appeal. It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED and the Plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED.
3
Finally, because I agree with the Magistrate Judge and conclude that the Plaintiff's complaint must be dismissed, the Plaintiff's remaining two motions—the motion seeking federal court jurisdiction, Mr. Torre's immediate release, and the return of his minor children (ECF No. 6); and the motion to remove the assistant district attorney from the Plaintiff's cases (ECF No. 16)—are hereby DENIED AS
MOOT.
SO ORDERED.
/s/ Nancy Torresen United States District Judge Dated this 2nd day of September, 2025.