From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

MONTGOMERY v. HOWARD'S VALU RITE PHARMACY

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Oct 22, 2010
Civ. No. 10-3051-CL (D. Or. Oct. 22, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 10-3051-CL.

October 22, 2010


ORDER


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, this court reviews the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

I have given this matter de novo review. I agree with the Report and Recommendation that plaintiff has not shown any basis for federal jurisdiction, and that no amendment could cure the jurisdictional defect. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#4) is adopted. This action is dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 21 day of October, 2010.


Summaries of

MONTGOMERY v. HOWARD'S VALU RITE PHARMACY

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Oct 22, 2010
Civ. No. 10-3051-CL (D. Or. Oct. 22, 2010)
Case details for

MONTGOMERY v. HOWARD'S VALU RITE PHARMACY

Case Details

Full title:MAURICE MONTGOMERY, Plaintiff, v. HOWARD'S VALU RITE PHARMACY aka HOWARD'S…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Oct 22, 2010

Citations

Civ. No. 10-3051-CL (D. Or. Oct. 22, 2010)