(PS) Miller v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 ALAN MILLER, No. 2:22-cv-02113 KJM AC PS 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. ORDER 14 TAHOE REGIONAL PLANNING

AGENCY,

15 Defendant. 16 17 18 Plaintiff, proceeding pro se, filed the above-entitled action. The matter was referred to a 19 United States Magistrate Judge as provided by Local Rule 302(c)(21). 20 On November 2, 2023, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations, which 21 were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the 22 findings and recommendations were to be filed within twenty-one days. See F&Rs, ECF No. 38. 23 Plaintiff filed objections, see Obj., ECF No. 39, and defendant responded, see Resp., ECF No. 40. 24 In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this 25 court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having reviewed the file, the court adopts the 26 findings and recommendations in part. First, the court notes the Tahoe Regional Planning 27 …