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-DC-JDP (PS) 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

14 ABBOTT LABORATORIES, (ECF Nos. 26, 34) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Roland Adams is proceeding pro se in this action for products liability against 18 Defendant Abbott Laboratories. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge 19 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. 20 On March 24, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein 21 which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings 22 and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. (ECF No. 34.) On April 4, 2025, 23 Defendant filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 35.) That 24 same day, Plaintiff also filed objections to the pending findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 25 37.) Thereafter, on April 18, 2025, Defendant filed a response to Plaintiff’s objections. (ECF No. 26 38.) The parties’ objections do not provide a basis upon which to reject the pending findings and 27 recommendations. 28 The court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States, 602 1 | F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. 2 | See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the 3 | magistrate judge are reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court ....”). 4 | Having reviewed the file, including the parties’ objections, the court finds the findings and 5 || recommendations to be supported by the record and by the proper analysis. 6 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 7 1. The proposed findings and recommendations dated March 24, 2025 (ECF No. 34) 8 are ADOPTED in full; 9 2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED; 10 3. Within thirty (30) days from the date of this order, Plaintiff may file a second 11 amended complaint; and 12 4. This matter is referred back to the assigned magistrate judge for further 13 proceedings. 14 15 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. □ 17 | Dated: _September 14, 2025 __ UC Dena Coggins 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28