From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

AULD v. DAVIDSON

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 1, 2009
Civil No. 08-3110-TC (D. Or. Jun. 1, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 08-3110-TC.

June 1, 2009


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on April 29, 2009. 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 de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#8) is allowed. Plaintiff's claims one, three, and four are dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's claim two is dismissed without prejudice. This action is dismissed.


Summaries of

AULD v. DAVIDSON

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 1, 2009
Civil No. 08-3110-TC (D. Or. Jun. 1, 2009)
Case details for

AULD v. DAVIDSON

Case Details

Full title:JEFFREY DUKE AULD, Plaintiff, v. LT. JEANETTE DAVIDSON, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 1, 2009

Citations

Civil No. 08-3110-TC (D. Or. Jun. 1, 2009)

Citing Cases

O'Neil v. Bebee

D.N.Y. Sept. 28, 2006) ( citing and quoting Nat'l Abortion Fed'n v. Ashcroft, 03-CV-8695, 2004 WL 555701, at…

Hoffman v. Lincoln Cnty. Sheriff's Dep't

To the extent that Plaintiff is referring to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996…