Cavin v. State of Oregon Department of Justice Division

Full title: EDWARD J. CAVIN, Plaintiff, v. STATE OF OREGON DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 2, 2009

Civil No. 09-6248-TC (D. Or. Nov. 2, 2009)

Opinion

Civil No. 09-6248-TC.

November 2, 2009

ORDER

MICHAEL HOGAN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on September 16, 2009, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981),cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed September 16, 2009, in its entirety. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice as frivolous and for failure to state a claim because the only named defendant is absolutely immune from suit in federal court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.