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

MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, District Judge.

The Court has reviewed the First Amended Complaint, records on file, and Report and Recommendation of the U.S. Magistrate Judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636. On June 16, 2014, Plaintiff filed objections to the R&R.

Plaintiff contends that she has standing to challenge the impoundment of her brother's car because it was "in [her] possession when it was seized and towed at the order of Deputy Davies." (Objections at 2.) But even assuming Plaintiff properly asserted a Fourth Amendment claim for unreasonable seizure of the car (see R&R at 15-17 (noting that Plaintiff raised claim regarding impoundment under Fifth and 14th amendments)), the fact that she was driving it before her arrest, which the R&R fully acknowledged (see R&R at 6, 17), does not establish any property interest sufficient to establish standing (see id. at 17-18). That is particularly true given that Plaintiff's brother was present during the arrest and informed Officer Davies that he was the registered owner of the car. (See id. at 7, 17.)

Plaintiff also contends that "[a]nother conspiracy or act that has damaged [her] and brings Santa Barbara County back into this case" is that county counsel represents all Defendants and "also happens to represent and advise[] the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors." (Objections at 3.) Plaintiff alleges that "[t]his custom of allowing the Santa Barbara . . . County Counsel to represent both the Santa Barbara County Board of Supervisors ([t]he legislative branch) as well as . . . defendants here in the Executive branch, amounts to an unlawful conflict and it directly defeats the checks and balances and amounts to a Conspiracy." (Id.) As noted in the R&R (R&R at 24 n.7), however, Plaintiff did not name the County Board of Supervisors as a defendant in the FAC. Nor did she allege any claim based on county counsel's representation of various parties or any alleged violation of "checks and balances." And Plaintiff has alleged no damages resulting from county counsel's actions, other than baldly stating that they "defeat [her] liberties." (Id. at 4.) And to the extent Plaintiff relies on her assertions to support her claims against the County (see id. at 3 (noting that allegations "bring[] Santa Barbara County back into this case"), they fail to remedy the various deficiencies noted in the R&R (see R&R at 18-25).

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.

IT THEREFORE IS ORDERED that Defendants' motion to dismiss is DENIED as to Plaintiff's claim that Deputy Myles Davies, in his individual capacity, used excessive force against her on May 14, 2011, and GRANTED as to all other claims.