Opinion
No. 3:14-cv-00652-AC
12-23-2014
BRENT EVAN WEBSTER and WEBSTER TECHNOLOGIES INC., Plaintiffs, v. ARAMARK CORRECTIONAL SERVICES, INC., MULTNOMAH COUNTY OREGON, JUDGE MICHAEL MARCUS, DDA ADAM GIBBS, SGT. D'MOORE, SGT. HAASE, PPO OFFICER HOESLEY, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC., SR. CLAIMS EXAMINER THERESE BRADY, CORVEL ENTERPRISES COMP INC., SR. CLAIMS SPECIALIST JD TAYLOR, ERIC J. FOSS, and DOES 1-100, Defendants.
Brent Evan Webster P.O. Box 55696 Portland, OR 97238-5696 Pro Se Plaintiff Eric J. Neiman Rachel A. Robinson Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC 888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 600 Portland, OR 97204-2025 Susan M. Dunaway Multnomah County Attorney 501 S.E. Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 500 Portland, OR 97214 Tracy J. White Oregon Department of Justice 1162 Court Street NE Salem, OR 97301-4096 William W. Manlove, III City of Portland 1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 430 Portland, OR 97204 Spencer Chester Rockwell Garrett Hemann Robertson PC 1101 Commercial Street, NE Salem, OR 97301 Robert Spajic Gordon & Polscer, LLC 9755 SW Barnes Road, Suite 650 Portland, OR 97225 Attorneys for Defendants
ORDER Brent Evan Webster
P.O. Box 55696
Portland, OR 97238-5696
Pro Se Plaintiff Eric J. Neiman
Rachel A. Robinson
Williams Kastner & Gibbs, PLLC
888 SW Fifth Avenue, Suite 600
Portland, OR 97204-2025
Susan M. Dunaway
Multnomah County Attorney
501 S.E. Hawthorne Boulevard, Suite 500
Portland, OR 97214
Tracy J. White
Oregon Department of Justice
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
William W. Manlove, III
City of Portland
1221 SW Fourth Avenue, Suite 430
Portland, OR 97204
Spencer Chester Rockwell
Garrett Hemann Robertson PC
1101 Commercial Street, NE
Salem, OR 97301
Robert Spajic
Gordon & Polscer, LLC
9755 SW Barnes Road, Suite 650
Portland, OR 97225
Attorneys for Defendants HERNÁNDEZ, District Judge:
Magistrate Judge Acosta issued a Findings and Recommendation [58] on November 11, 2014, in which he recommends that the Court grant Defendants' motions to dismiss [27, 31, 35, 36, and 44] and dismiss Plaintiff Webster Technologies, Inc. as a plaintiff. Plaintiff Webster 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's objections and conclude that the objections do not provide a basis to modify the 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.
CONCLUSION
The Court adopts Magistrate Judge Acosta's Findings and Recommendation [58]. Therefore, Defendants' motions to dismiss [27, 31, 35, 36, and 44] are granted. Plaintiff Webster Technologies, Inc. is dismissed as a plaintiff to this action, all claims against Defendants Aramark, Foss, Cannon Cochran, Brady, Corvel, Taylor, Hoesley, Marcus, and Gibbs are dismissed, and Defendants' Marcus and Gibbs's motion in the alternative to strike or for a more definite statement [36] is denied as moot. The claims are dismissed with prejudice, with the exception of the breach of contract claim, which is dismissed without prejudice. It is further noted that all lawsuits filed by Plaintiff Webster in the District of Oregon is subject to a Pre-Filing Order, In Re Webster, In re Kelly, No. 3:11-mc-09266, to ensure that the lawsuit is not frivolous or repetitive.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED this 23 day of Dec, 2014.
/s/_________
MARCO A. HERNÁNDEZ
United States District Judge