Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02428/USCOURTS-caed-2_19-cv-02428-1/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 446
Nature of Suit: Americans with Disabilities Act - Other
Cause of Action: 29:791 Job Discrimination (Rehabilitation Act)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

EUGENE KORTE,

Plaintiff,

v.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA, et al.,

Defendants.

No. 2:19-cv-02428-TLN-KJN 

ORDER 

Plaintiff Eugene Korte (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se, brings this civil action. The 

matter was referred to a United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and 

Local Rule 302. 

On January 7, 2020, the magistrate judge filed findings and recommendations which were 

served on the parties and which contained notice that any objections to the findings and 

recommendations were to be filed within fourteen (14) days. (ECF No. 3.) On January 15, 2020,

Plaintiff filed Objections to the Findings and Recommendations. (ECF No. 4.)

This Court reviews de novo those portions of the proposed findings of fact to which 

objection has been made. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore 

Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). As 

to any portion of the proposed findings of fact to which no objection has been made, the Court 

Case 2:19-cv-02428-TLN-KJN Document 5 Filed 01/22/20 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

assumes its correctness and decides the motions on the applicable law. See Orand v. United 

States, 602 F.2d 207, 208 (9th Cir. 1979). The magistrate judge’s conclusions of law are 

reviewed de novo. See Britt v. Simi Valley Unified Sch. Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). 

Having carefully reviewed the entire file under the applicable legal standards, the Court 

finds the Findings and Recommendations to be supported by the record and by the magistrate 

judge’s analysis. 

Accordingly, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that:

1. The Findings and Recommendations filed on January 7, 2020 (ECF No. 3), are 

adopted in full;

2. This action is DISMISSED, with prejudice; and

3. The Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. 

IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: January 21, 2020

Case 2:19-cv-02428-TLN-KJN Document 5 Filed 01/22/20 Page 2 of 2