United States of America v. Peery
Filing
112
ORDERsigned by District Judge John A. Mendez on 10/3/2019 ADOPTING in FULL 94 Findings and Recommendations, and DENYING 86 Defendant's motion to dismiss. (Reader, L)
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
9
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
10
11
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Plaintiff,
13
14
No. 2:18-cv-1074 JAM AC (PS)
v.
ORDER
NEWMAN S. PEERY, JR.,
15
Defendant.
16
Plaintiff is proceeding in this action in pro per. The matter was referred to a United States
17
18
Magistrate Judge pursuant to Local Rule 302(c)(21).
On July 11, 2019, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations herein which
19
20
were served on all parties and which contained notice to all parties that any objections to the
21
findings and recommendations were to be filed within fourteen days. ECF No. 94. Defendant
22
filed amended objections to the findings and recommendations. ECF No. 98. Plaintiff has filed a
23
response to the objections. ECF No. 102.
In accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) and Local Rule 304, this
24
25
court has conducted a de novo review of this case. Having carefully reviewed the entire file, the
26
court finds the findings and recommendations to be supported by the record and by proper
27
analysis.
28
////
1
1
Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:
2
1. The findings and recommendations filed July 11, 2019, are adopted in full; and
3
2. Defendant’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 86) is DENIED.
4
5
6
Dated: October 3, 2019
/s/ John A. Mendez
HONORABLE JOHN A. MENDEZ
United States District Court Judge
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?