Anello v. Williams

Full title: AARON ALEXANDER ANELLO, Plaintiff, v. MAX WILLIAMS, Director of Department…

Court: UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 28, 2012

3:10-CV-00622-AC (D. Or. Jun. 28, 2012)

Opinion

3:10-CV-00622-AC

06-28-2012

AARON ALEXANDER ANELLO, Plaintiff, v. MAX WILLIAMS, Director of Department of Corrections; M. NOOTH, Superintendent; CAPT. PETERSON (FNU); SGT. MENA (FNU); CPL. FUGATE (FNU); C.O. RUX (FNU); JOHN DOE #1. C.O.; JOHN DOE #2; JOHN DOE #3, Defendants.

ANNA J. BROWN

ORDER

BROWN, Judge.

Magistrate Judge John V. Acosta issued Findings and Recommendation (#70) on March 20, 2012, in which he recommended the Court grant Defendants' Motion (#46) for Summary Judgment. Plaintiff filed 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 Dawson v. Marshall, 561 F.3d 930, 932 (9th Cir. 2009); United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 F.3d 1114, 1121 (9th Cir. 2003)(en banc).

In his Objections, Plaintiff contends Defendants' filings in support of their Motion for Summary Judgment do not conform with Local Rule 56-1, and, therefore, Defendants' Motion is void. Specifically, Plaintiff points out that Defendants did not file a Concise Statement of Material Facts in support of their Motion filed July 22, 2011. This Court, however, amended Local Rule 56-1 effective January 1, 2011, and the Court no longer required parties to file a Concise Statement of Material Facts from that time. Accordingly, Defendants did not violate Local Rule 56-1.

Plaintiff's other Objections reiterate the arguments contained in his Response to Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment. 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 Acosta's Findings and Recommendation (#70) and GRANTS Defendants' Motion (#46) for Summary Judgment. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this matter with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

ANNA J. BROWN

United States District Judge