Summary
In Wilson-Sauls v. Curtis, Civil No. 07-163-AS, 2008 WL 836417 (D. Or. March 26, 2008), the plaintiff asserted a Bivens claim based on violations of her Forth and Fifth Amendment rights when other federal employees improperly allowed an individual with a checkered past and disciplinary records to continue working for the federal government as a security guard.
Summary of this case from Ponce v. U.S. Gov'tOpinion
Civil Case No. 07-163-AS.
March 25, 2008
Helen C. Tompkins, Buckley LeChevallier, P.C., Lake Oswego, Oregon.
Randall C. Wolfe, Lake Oswego, Oregon, Attorneys for Plaintiff.
Karin J. Immergut, United States Attorney, District of Oregon, Kevin Danielson, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, Oregon.
Steven A. Kraemer, Travis J. Mayor, Hoffman Hart Wagner, LLP, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
The Honorable Donald C. Ashmanskas, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on February 7, 2008. The matter is before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Defendants have filed objections and plaintiff has filed a response.
When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Having given a de novo review of the issues raised in the objections to the Findings and Recommendation, I find no error.
Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Ashmanskas's Findings and Recommendation (#104) and GRANT in part and DENY in part Federal defendants' Motion to Dismiss or, in the alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment (#70). Plaintiff's claim pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 is dismissed, but the Federal defendants' request that the United States be substituted as the party defendant in lieu of the individual defendants is denied pending an evidentiary hearing on the scope of employment.
IT IS SO ORDERED.