United States v. Peery, 2:18-cv-1074 JAM AC (PS). (2019)
Court: District Court, E.D. California
Number: infdco20191008z31
Visitors: 25
Filed: Oct. 04, 2019
Latest Update: Oct. 04, 2019
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 94. Defendant filed amended objections to the fin
Summary: ORDER JOHN A. MENDEZ , District Judge . Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21). On July 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 94. Defendant filed amended objections to the find..
More
ORDER
JOHN A. MENDEZ, District Judge.
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On July 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 94. Defendant filed amended objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 98. Plaintiff has filed a response to the objections. ECF No. 102.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper analysis.
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 11, 2019, are adopted in full; and
2. Defendant's motion to dismiss (ECF No. 86) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
