ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.

On March 20, 2013, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. Defendants filed objections on April 3, 2013, and they were considered by the undersigned.

This court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the court assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983).

The court has reviewed the applicable legal standards and, good cause appearing, concludes that it is appropriate to adopt the proposed Findings and Recommendations in full. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that:

1. The proposed Findings and Recommendations filed March 20, 2013, are ADOPTED;

2. Defendants' motion to dismiss, Dckt. No. 31, is granted; and

3. Plaintiff is granted forty-five days from the date of this order to file a second amended complaint as provided in the March 20, 2013 Findings and Recommendations. Plaintiff is directed that the second amended complaint must bear the docket number assigned to this case and must be labeled "Second Amended Complaint." Plaintiff is admonished that failure to timely file a second amended complaint may result in a recommendation that this action be dismissed with prejudice.