Opinion
No. 03:09-CV-116-ST.
August 1, 2011
Stephen L. Brischetto, Attorney at Law, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.
Stephen Edward Dingle, Oregon Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Jenny M. Morf, Katharine Von Ter Stegge, Office of the Multnomah County Attorney, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Janice Stewart issued a Findings and Recommendation (#105) on May 23, 2011, in which she recommends that the Court grant Defendants Sowle and Short's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (docket #89) and Defendants Hoover, Bradley, and French's Motion for Summary Judgment Against First Amended Complaint (docket #91). Plaintiff Boggs timely filed objections to the Findings and Recommendation. The matter is now before me 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); 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).
I have carefully considered Plaintiff Boggs's objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the Findings and Recommendation. I have also reviewed the pertinent portions of the record de novo and find no error in the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation.
For clarification, I believe the first sentence on page 12 should read "Boggs contends that the necessary implication of Judge King's Order adopting the Boggs II F R is that Tibbetts bars defendants' bid for qualified immunity."
CONCLUSION
The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Stewart's Findings and Recommendation (#105) and, therefore, Defendants Sowle and Short's Motion to Dismiss Amended Complaint (docket #89) and Defendants Hoover, Bradley, and French's Motion for Summary Judgment Against the First Amended Complaint (docket #91) are granted. Furthermore, to the extent that any portion of the Findings and Recommendation adopted in Robert Boggs v. Schrunk, et al, Case No. 07-CV-954-ST may be construed to conflict with this decision, the prior ruling is vacated.
IT IS SO ORDERED.