(PS) Adams v. Abbott Laboratories

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ROLAND ADAMS, Case No. 2:24-cv-00555-KJM-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 ABBOTT LABORATORIES, 15 Defendant. 16 17 On July 17, 2024, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which were 18 served on the parties, and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 19 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. No objections were filed. 20 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 21 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed 22 de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law 23 by the magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court 24 . . . .”). Having reviewed the file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be 25 supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 26 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 27 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed July 17, 2024, are ADOPTED; 28 ///// ] 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss, ECF No. 4, is granted and plaintiff is granted thirty 2 || days to amend his complaint or notify the court whether plaintiff seeks to proceed on the 3 || amended complaint as filed on August 14, 2024. See ECF No. 18. 4 3. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pre-trial 5 | matters. 6 | DATED: September 9, 2024. 9 CHIEF ED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28