(PS) Eswaran v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SURESH ESWARAN, 12 Plaintiff, Case No. 2:25-cv-1003-TLN-JDP (PS) 13 v. 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, et al., ORDER 15 Defendants. 16 17 On June 23, 2025, 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. Plaintiff Suresh Eswaran, (“Plaintiff”) 20 filed timely objections on July 7, 2025, and they were considered by the undersigned. 21 The Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 22 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 23 See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 24 magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). 25 Having reviewed the file, the Court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by 26 the record and by the proper analysis. 27 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 28 1. The proposed findings and recommendations filed June 23, 2025, (ECF No. 8), are 1 ADOPTED in full; 2 2. Plaintiff is allowed to proceed with the Second Amended Complaint’s First Amendment 3 censorship claim against Defendant Fredrick Radcliffe only; 4 3. Plaintiff’s remaining claims are DISMISSED without leave to amend; and 5 4. This action is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for all further pretrial matters. 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28