From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hooper v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Aug 15, 2012
1:12-CV-00297-CL (D. Or. Aug. 15, 2012)

Opinion

1:12-CV-00297-CL

08-15-2012

DENNIS RUSSELL HOOPER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


ORDER

PANNER, J.

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). Although no objections have been filed, I review legal principles de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007).

I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff's motion for entry of default and for default judgment should be denied because plaintiff has failed to show that defendant has been properly served. I deny plaintiff's motion for appointment of pro bono counsel at this time.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#14) is adopted. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (#3) and motion for default (#12) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hooper v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Aug 15, 2012
1:12-CV-00297-CL (D. Or. Aug. 15, 2012)
Case details for

Hooper v. United States

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS RUSSELL HOOPER, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

Date published: Aug 15, 2012

Citations

1:12-CV-00297-CL (D. Or. Aug. 15, 2012)