From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Allen v. Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Feb 29, 2012
3:11-CV-00218-PK (D. Or. Feb. 29, 2012)

Opinion

3:11-CV-00218-PK

02-29-2012

MATTHEW ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; DON MILLS, Superintendent; LAINE IVERSON, Captain; LORI DAVIS, Captain; SONNY RIDER, Captain; DAREN DUFLOTH, Lieutenant; JAMES EDISON, Lieutenant; JOHN MYRIC, Lieutenant; CAMERON BAUER, Corporal; and TORRES, Corrections Officer, Defendants.


ORDER

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#51) on January 31, 2012, in which he recommended the Court grant in part and deny as moot in part Defendants' Motion (#17) to Dismiss and enter a final judgment in this matter. Plaintiff filed timely Objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b).

When any party objects to any portion of the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). See also United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc); United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988).

In his Objections, Plaintiff reiterates the arguments contained in his Response to Defendants' Motion to Dismiss. This Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's Objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. The Court also has reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and does not find any error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#51). Accordingly, the Court

(1) GRANTS Defendants' Motion (#17) to Dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim against the State of Oregon for lack
of subject-matter jurisdiction, DENIES as moot Defendants' Motion (#17) to Dismiss Plaintiff's negligence claim against the State of Oregon for lack of personal jurisdiction, and DISMISSES Plaintiff's negligence claim without prejudice; and
(2) GRANTS Defendants' Motion (#17) to Dismiss Plaintiffs' § 1983 claims for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and DISMISSES those claims without prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

______________________

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Allen v. Oregon

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON PORTLAND DIVISION
Feb 29, 2012
3:11-CV-00218-PK (D. Or. Feb. 29, 2012)
Case details for

Allen v. Oregon

Case Details

Full title:MATTHEW ALLEN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON; DON MILLS, Superintendent…

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

Date published: Feb 29, 2012

Citations

3:11-CV-00218-PK (D. Or. Feb. 29, 2012)