Opinion
2:19-cv-09430-DOC-KES
06-23-2023
VIENPHUONG THI HO, Plaintiff, v. THE CITY OF LONG BEACH, PUBLIC WORKS, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE
DAVID O. CARTER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the pleadings and all the records and files herein, along with the Report and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (Dkt. 221). Further, the Court has engaged in a de novo review of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections (Dkt. 223) have been made. The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendants Oum and Pho's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 212) is granted, and Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (Dkt. 211) is denied.
The Court previously granted the summary judgment motion filed by Defendants City of Long Beach, Jeffrey Sortman, Diko Melkonian, Craig A. Beck, and Joseph Gludt. (Dkt. 178, 186.) Judgment shall therefore be entered for all Defendants.
The Court previously granted these Defendants' motions for summary judgment, but it did not enter judgment at that time because the claims against Defendants Oum and Pho remained pending. See generally Fed.R.Civ.P. 54(b) (authorizing the court to enter a partial judgment “only if the court expressly determines that there is no just reason for delay”); Wood v. GCC Bend, LLC. 422 F.3d 873, 878-79 (9th Cir. 2005) (discussing when judgment should be entered under Rule 54(b)).