Acosta

Acosta v. Martinez.

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 7, 20201:19-cv-00307California502 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 JOSE ACOSTA, No. 1:19-cv-00307-AWI-EPG Plaintiff, ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND

RECOMMENDATIONS IN PART

v. (ECF Nos. 16, 26, 27) MARIA MARTINEZ, et al., Defendants. 15 Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Jose Acosta’s (“Plaintiff”) Motion for Default Judgment. (ECF No. 16). On March 3, 2020, Magistrate Judge Erica Grosjean issued Findings and Recommendations recommending that the Plaintiff’s Motion for Default be granted in part and denied in part. (ECF No. 26). The Findings and Recommendations were served on the parties with instructions that any objections must be filed within fourteen days of service of the order. On March 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed an objection in part. (ECF No. 27). In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C), this Court has conducted a de novo review of the case. Plaintiff’s objections concerned the fee award. The Findings and Recommendations recommended denying…

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.