(PS) Korte v. State of California ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 EUGENE KORTE, No. 2:19-cv-02428-TLN-KJN 12 Plaintiff, ORDER 13 v. 14 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al., 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Plaintiff Eugene Korte (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The 19 matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 20 Local Rule 302. 21 On January 7, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 22 served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 23 recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 3.) On January 15, 2020, 24 Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 4.) 25 This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 26 objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 27 Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 28 to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 1 assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 2 States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 3 reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 4 Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 5 finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 6 judge’s analysis. 7 Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: 8 1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 7, 2020 (ECF No. 3), are 9 adopted in full; 10 2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and 11 3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 12 IT IS SO ORDERED. 13 Dated: January 21, 2020 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28