1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 KEVIN B. JOHNSON, No. 2:19-cv-2359-JAM-EFB PS 11 Plaintiff, 12 v. ORDER 13 FEDERAL BUREAU OF

INVESTIGATION,

14 Defendant. 15

16 17 On May 14, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which 18 were 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 filed objections on May 26, 20 2020, and amended objections on May 28, 2020. Those filings were considered by the 21 undersigned. 22 This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 23 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 24 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 25 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court 26 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 27 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 28 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 1 The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, 2 concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. 3 Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 4 1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed May 14, 2020, are adopted; 5 2. Plaintiff’s first amended complaint (ECF No. 7) is dismissed without leave to amend; 6 3. Plaintiff’s motions for leave to file documents electronically (ECF No. 8), for 7 injunctive relief (ECF No. 10), and to conduct discovery (ECF No. 12) are denied as 8 moot; and 9 4. The Clerk is directed to close the case. 10 DATED: June 29, 2020 11 /s/ John A. Mendez____________ _____ 12 13 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUDGE 14

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28