From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Boyd v. Schmidt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
May 1, 2014
No. 1:12-cv-564-CL (D. Or. May. 1, 2014)

Opinion

No. 1:12-cv-564-CL

05-01-2014

LEONARD JACOB BOYD, Plaintiff, v. D. SCHMIDT, et al., 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 plaintiff failed to prosecute this action and failed to comply with a court order. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#116) is adopted. Defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to prosecute (##88, 94), and for failure to comply with a court order (##100, 102) are granted. Defendants' motion to quash subpoena (#110) is granted, and plaintiff's motions for subpoena duces tecum (##104, 106, 112, and 114) are denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Boyd v. Schmidt

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
May 1, 2014
No. 1:12-cv-564-CL (D. Or. May. 1, 2014)
Case details for

Boyd v. Schmidt

Case Details

Full title:LEONARD JACOB BOYD, Plaintiff, v. D. SCHMIDT, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

Date published: May 1, 2014

Citations

No. 1:12-cv-564-CL (D. Or. May. 1, 2014)