From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Charles v. Maass

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 3, 2005
Civil No. 97-437-TC (D. Or. Nov. 3, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 97-437-TC.

November 3, 2005


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on September 28, 2005, 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).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed September 28, 2005, in its entirety. Relief on all grounds in the petition before the court is denied, and the petition is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Charles v. Maass

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 3, 2005
Civil No. 97-437-TC (D. Or. Nov. 3, 2005)
Case details for

Charles v. Maass

Case Details

Full title:CALVIN CHARLES, Petitioner, v. MANFRED MAASS, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 3, 2005

Citations

Civil No. 97-437-TC (D. Or. Nov. 3, 2005)