From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boronda v. Moye

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jul 27, 2012
No. 1:11-cv-3082 (D. Or. Jul. 27, 2012)

Opinion

No. 1:11-cv-3082

07-27-2012

MICHAEL A. BORONDA, Plaintiff, v. SARA MOYE and JOSEPHINE COUNTY, Defendants.


ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that it would be futile to allow plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a statutory claim under Or. Rev. Stat. § 652.610. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#41) is adopted. Plaintiff's motion for leave to file an amended complaint (#36) is denied as to the statutory claim and granted as to economic damages. The amended complaint is due within 10 days of the date of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Boronda v. Moye

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jul 27, 2012
No. 1:11-cv-3082 (D. Or. Jul. 27, 2012)
Case details for

Boronda v. Moye

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL A. BORONDA, Plaintiff, v. SARA MOYE and JOSEPHINE COUNTY…

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jul 27, 2012

Citations

No. 1:11-cv-3082 (D. Or. Jul. 27, 2012)