Hall v. Williams

Full title: ROGER D. HALL, Plaintiff, v. MAX WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Feb 3, 2012

No. 1:11-cv-0493-CL (D. Or. Feb. 3, 2012)

Opinion

No. 1:11-cv-0493-CL

02-03-2012

ROGER D. HALL, Plaintiff, v. MAX WILLIAMS, et al., Defendants.

OWEN M. PANNER

ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff has filed objections, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that claim preclusion bars plaintiff's claims. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#26) is adopted. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#16) is granted. Plaintiff's motion for stay (#24) is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE