1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ERIC LEBRON SPRINGS, Case No. 1:23-cv-01493-JLT-CDB (PC) 12 Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS REGARDING 13 v. DISMISSAL OF CERTAIN CLAIMS 14 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, (Doc. 26) 15 Defendant. 16 17 Eric Lebron Springs is a federal prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this 18 action. Plaintiff asserts claims under the Federal Tort Claims Act. 19 On November 12, 2024, the assigned United States Magistrate Judge screened the second 20 amended complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A and found Plaintiff stated cognizable claims 21 against Defendant the United States of America under the California state law torts of assault and 22 battery. (Doc. 23 at 6-8). The Magistrate Judge also found that the other claims in the second 23 amended complaint were not cognizable and granted Plaintiff leave to file a third amended 24 complaint or to stand on the second amended complaint as screened. (Id. at 8-10). The Court 25 served Plaintiff with the screening order on the same day. 26 On December 9, 2024, Plaintiff timely filed a notice informing the Court that he did not 27 wish to amend his complaint and that he wished to stand on his second amended complaint as 28 screened. (Doc. 24). 1 On December 13, 2024, the Magistrate Judge issued Findings and Recommendations to 2 | dismiss all remaining claims, aside from those Federal Tort Claims Act claims asserting assault 3 | and battery under California state law. (Doc. 26). The Findings and Recommendations notified 4 | Plaintiff that any objections were due within 14 days. Ud. at 2). Plaintiff was advised that the 5 | “failure to file any objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of certain rights 6 | on appeal.” Ud., citing Wilkerson v. Wheeler,

(9th Cir. 2014)). Plaintiff was 7 | served with the Findings and Recommendations on December 13, 2024. Plaintiff did not file 8 | objections and the time to do so has passed. 9 According to

(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. 10 | Having carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations 11 | are supported by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS: 12 1. The findings and recommendations issued on December 13, 2024 (Doc. 26) are 13 ADOPTED in full. 14 2. This action SHALL proceed on Plaintiff's second amended complaint (Doc. 22) only 15 on the cognizable Federal Tort Claims Act claims against Defendant the United States 16 of America under the California state law torts of assault and battery. 17 3. All other claims are DISMISSED from this action for failure to state claims upon 18 which relief may be granted. 19 4. This action is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 | Dated: _November 5, 2025 Charis [Tourn TED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 23 24 25 26 27 28