Doe v. Medford School District 549C

Full title: JANE DOE, by and through her guardian Christina H., et al., Plaintiffs, v…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 18, 2011

Civ. No. 10-3113-CL (D. Or. Mar. 18, 2011)

Opinion

Civ. No. 10-3113-CL.

March 18, 2011

ORDER

OWEN 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). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews the legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1983).

I have given the legal issues de novo review. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiffs' motion to strike should be denied. I also agree that defendants' motions to dismiss should be granted in part and denied in part, as explained in the Report and Recommendation's thorough discussion. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#60) is adopted. Plaintiffs' motion to strike (#49) is denied. Defendants' motion to dismiss (#42) is granted in part and denied in part as explained by the Report and Recommendation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.