Summary
rejecting claim that elder abuse statutes created a property interest
Summary of this case from Malott v. Placer Cnty.Opinion
07-CV-0008-PK.
August 27, 2007
ERNA E.N. BOLDT, Sandy, OR, Plaintiff, Pro Se.
HARDY MYERS, Attorney General, ELIZABETH K. ENGBERG, Assistant Attorney General Department of Justice, Salem, OR, Attorneys for Defendants.
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Paul Papak issued Findings and Recommendation (#33) on July 6, 2007, in which he recommended the Court grant Defendant Hardy Myers's Motion to Dismiss (#6) with prejudice, grant the Motion to Dismiss (#18) of Defendants Brenda Durbin and Craig Roberts with prejudice, and deny Plaintiff Erna E. N. Boldt's Motion for Default Judgment (#13) against Defendant Roberts. 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 Fed.R.Civ.P. 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. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1444 (9th Cir. 1988); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Plaintiff's Objections generally reiterate the arguments contained in her Response brief. The Court has carefully considered Plaintiff's objections and concludes they do not provide a basis to modify the Finddings and Recommendation. This 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 (#33) and, accordingly GRANTS Defendant Hardy Myers's Motion to Dismiss (#6) with prejudice, GRANTS the Motion to Dismiss (#18) of Defendants Brenda Durbin and Craig Roberts with prejudice, and DENIES Plaintiff Erna E. N. Boldt's Motion for Default Judgment (#13) as to Defendant Roberts.IT IS SO ORDERED.