1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SURESH ESWARAN, No. 2:25-cv-00978-TLN 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 BUNMI AWONIYI, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 Plaintiff Suresh Eswaran (“Plaintiff”) proceeds in this action pro se. The matter was 18 referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to

(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 19 302 20 On July 14, 2025, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations (ECF No. 10), 21 which were served on Plaintiff which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 22 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. On July 22, 2025, Plaintiff filed 23 objections to the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 11.) 24 The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 25

(9th Cir. 2007) (“[D]eterminations of law by the magistrate judge are 26 reviewed de novo by both the district court and [the appellate] court[.]”). Having carefully 27 reviewed this matter including Plaintiffs’ objections, the Court finds the findings and 28 recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis. 1 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 2 1. The findings and recommendations (ECF No. 10) are ADOPTED in full; 3 2. Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint (ECF No. 7) is DISMISSED without leave to 4 amend; and 5 3. The Clerk of the Court is directed to close this case. 6 Date: September 9, 2025 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28