From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Cunningham v. Kelly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 30, 2017
Case No. 6:17 CV 00671-CL (D. Or. May. 30, 2017)

Opinion

Case No. 6:17 CV 00671-CL

05-30-2017

BRADLY CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. BRANDON KELLY, Respondent.


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Clarke filed his Findings and Recommendation on May 11, 2017. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that, I adopt Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation.

Dated this 30 day of May, 2017.

/s/_________

Ann Aiken, United States District Judge


Summaries of

Cunningham v. Kelly

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
May 30, 2017
Case No. 6:17 CV 00671-CL (D. Or. May. 30, 2017)
Case details for

Cunningham v. Kelly

Case Details

Full title:BRADLY CUNNINGHAM, Petitioner, v. BRANDON KELLY, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: May 30, 2017

Citations

Case No. 6:17 CV 00671-CL (D. Or. May. 30, 2017)