(PS)Ortiz

(PS)Ortiz v. Hackney

Good Law
United States District Court, Eastern District of CaliforniaJuly 8, 20202:19-cv-02089California345 words

Opinion

Trial Court Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 RENE ORTIZ, No. 2:19-cv-02089-TLN-DB Plaintiff, v. ORDER RODNEY HACKNEY, Defendant. 16 17 Plaintiff Rene Ortiz (“Plaintiff”) is proceeding in this action pro se. The matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Rule 302(c)(21). On May 11, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations 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 thirty days after service of the findings and recommendations. (ECF No. 14.) On June 8, 2020, Plaintiff filed a “Response to the Courts’ [sic] Finding and Recommendations,” in which he thanked the Court for its time but did not raise any objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 15.) Accordingly, the Court presumes that any findings of fact are correct. See Orand v. United States,…

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.