From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spradley v. Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Oct 3, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-1142-TC (D. Or. Oct. 3, 2012)

Opinion

No. 2:11-cv-1142-TC

10-03-2012

JOHN LOYDD SPRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON, et. al., Defendants


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on September 14, 2012, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1982) . See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F. 2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error. Accordingly, I adopt Judge. Coffin's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

I adopt Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation (#53) filed September 14, 2012. Defendants' unopposed motion for summary judgment (#44) is granted and this action is dismissed with prejudice.

_________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Spradley v. Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Oct 3, 2012
No. 2:11-cv-1142-TC (D. Or. Oct. 3, 2012)
Case details for

Spradley v. Oregon

Case Details

Full title:JOHN LOYDD SPRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON, et. al., Defendants

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Oct 3, 2012

Citations

No. 2:11-cv-1142-TC (D. Or. Oct. 3, 2012)