ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF U.S. MAGISTRATE JUDGE

BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, District Judge.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed de novo the First Amended Complaint, records on file, and Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. On May 14, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R, in which he mostly decries the Magistrate Judge's alleged "bias" against him, purported "sabotage" of his case, and supposed "judicial collusion" with Defendants. (See Objections at 2-4; see generally id.) Plaintiff's claims of bias are belied by the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that Defendants' motion for summary judgment be denied on several grounds, conclusions with which the Court agrees, for the reasons stated in the R&R. Moreover, the Magistrate Judge did not refuse to construe Plaintiff's pro se pleadings liberally, as Plaintiff claims. (See id. at 3.) Rather, she stated — entirely appropriately — that because of Plaintiff's training in the law and nonincarcerated status, she would construe his pleadings less liberally than she would for an incarcerated inmate with no legal training.1 (R&R at 1 n.1.)

Plaintiff claims that the Magistrate Judge ignored his reliance on Motley v. Parks, 383 F.3d 1058 (9th Cir. 2004). But he cited Motley merely for general principles of law that the Magistrate Judge applied — for instance, that a warrantless search must be "authorized and lawfully conducted." (Objections at 4.) Moreover, Motley nowhere discusses punitive damages, contrary to Plaintiff's implication. (Id. at 5.)

Plaintiff also objects that the Magistrate Judge allegedly "misstated" and "materially altered" his "argument of duty" — that the officers had a duty to investigate the Elmaksouds' reliability, just as the officers in Motley had a duty to investigate. (Id. at 5-7; see also id. at 12-14.) But the Magistrate Judge addressed the issue of the officers' duty to investigate the Elmaksouds' claims at length. (See R&R at 19-22.) In any event, the circumstances of the search at issue in Motley were different from those here in one critical respect: no allegation of danger was involved. In Motley, the officers merely sought to conduct a parole search, with no suspicion of any criminal activity, see Motley, 383 F.3d at 1068-69; here, the complaining witnesses said that Plaintiff had come to their home and threatened to kill them and that he was known to possess guns. Thus, as the Magistrate Judge explained, the urgent nature of the situation here required that the officers take immediate action, whereas no such circumstances existed in Motley (or in Fuller v. M.G. Jewelry, 950 F.2d 1437 (9th Cir. 1991) (search of grand-theft suspects), the other case on which Plaintiff relies (see Objections at 7)).

Plaintiff's objection that the Magistrate Judge "ignored" the "admitted fact" that Rebecca Elmaksoud "confessed to committing a crime" when or after Plaintiff came to her house and threatened her and her family (id. at 8) is not well taken. Nothing in the record indicates that Elmaksoud was not lawfully armed. In any event, her having armed herself presumably in response to Plaintiff's threats did not undermine her credibility.

Plaintiff further claims that "[t]here's no reasonable explanation" for the Magistrate Judge's finding that the officers had probable cause to go to Plaintiff's house based on the Elmaksouds' complaints and the video but then later that night determined that "no crime" had been committed. (Id. at 10.) But of course there is: the officers' investigation continued at Plaintiff's house, when they talked to him and his son and searched his house. The additional information gleaned during that period led Officer Prather to subsequently conclude that no crime had been committed.

Accordingly, having reviewed de novo those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections were filed, the Court accepts the findings and recommendations of the Magistrate Judge.2

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that (1) Defendants' motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to Deputy Lopez's detention and handcuffing of Plaintiff, Plaintiff's Monell claim against the County and the individual Defendants in their official capacity, and his request for punitive damages and DENIED as to the search of Plaintiff's house and (2) Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment is DENIED.