(PC) Springs v. United States

8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ERIC LEBRON SPRINGS, Case No.: 1:23-cv-01493-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS 13 v. 14-DAY OBJECTION DEADLINE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 15 Defendant. Clerk of the Court to Assign District Judge 17 Plaintiff Eric Lebron Springs is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act.

19 I. RELEVANT BACKGROUND 20 On November 12, 2024, the Court issued its First Screening Order. (Doc. 23). This Court found Plaintiff’s operative, second amended complaint plausibly alleges claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) for California state law torts of assault and battery but fails to allege any other claims. Id. at 8-10. As a result, Plaintiff was ordered to do one of the following within 30 days of the date of service of the order: (1) notify the Court in writing that he did not wish to file a third amended complaint and that he was willing to proceed only on the cognizable claims, with the remaining claims to be dismissed; or (2) file a third amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court in the First Screening Order. Id. at 10-11.

In a December 9, 2024 filing, dated and signed November 28, 2024, Plaintiff states that he | “wishes to place the court on notice that he does not wish to amend his complaint, and that [he] | wish[es] to stand on [his] complaint.” Jd.

3 I. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 4 The Clerk of the Court is directed to randomly assign a district judge.

5 For the reasons set forth in the Court’s First Screening Order (Doc. 23), the Court | RECOMMENDS that: 7 1. This action PROCEED only on Plaintiff's FTCA claims for assault and battery under 8 California state tort law; 9 2. The remaining claims in Plaintiff's second amended complaint (Doc. 22) be 10 DISMISSED.

11 These Findings and Recommendations will be submitted to the United States District | Judge assigned to this case, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(). Within 14 days | after being served with a copy of these Findings and Recommendations, a party may file written | objections with the Court. Local Rule 304(b). The document should be captioned, “Objections to | Magistrate Judge’s Findings and Recommendations” and shall not exceed 15 pages without | leave of Court and good cause shown. The Court will not consider exhibits attached to the | Objections. To the extent a party wishes to refer to any exhibit(s), the party should reference the | exhibit in the record by its CM/ECF document and page number, when possible, or otherwise || reference the exhibit with specificity. Any pages filed in excess of the 15-page limitation may | be disregarded by the District Judge when reviewing these Findings and Recommendations | under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A party’s failure to file any objections within the specified time | may result in the waiver of certain rights on appeal. Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 839 (9th | Cir. 2014).

24 | IT IS SOORDERED. > | Dated: _December 13, 2024 | Wr Pr 26 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE