(PS) Korte v. State of California

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJanuary 22, 20202:19-cv-02428California353 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 EUGENE KORTE, No. 2:19-cv-02428-TLN-KJN Plaintiff, ORDER

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

15 Defendants.

17 Plaintiff Eugene Korte (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302. On January 7, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 3.) On January 15, 2020, Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 4.) 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…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.