From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spradley v. Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Mar 20, 2012
6: 11-cv-1137-TC (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2012)

Opinion

6: 11-cv-1137-TC

03-20-2012

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


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Thomas M Coffin has filed his Findings and Recommendation on February 15, 2012. The matter is now before me. See 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 novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Coffins Findings and Recommendation- This action is dismissed for failure to prosecute. The clerk of court is directed to enter judgment accordingly.

___________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Spradley v. Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Mar 20, 2012
6: 11-cv-1137-TC (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2012)
Case details for

Spradley v. Oregon

Case Details

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

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Mar 20, 2012

Citations

6: 11-cv-1137-TC (D. Or. Mar. 20, 2012)