From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Elmore v. Jackson Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Jan 7, 2014
No. 1:12-cv-1332-CL (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2014)

Opinion

No. 1:12-cv-1332-CL

01-07-2014

LAWRENCE LEE ELMORE, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY, et al. Defendants.


ORDER

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 legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983).

I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff's claim for malicious prosecution must be dismissed based on qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#57) is adopted. Defendants' amended motion to dismiss (#37) is granted with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Elmore v. Jackson Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Jan 7, 2014
No. 1:12-cv-1332-CL (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2014)
Case details for

Elmore v. Jackson Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:LAWRENCE LEE ELMORE, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY, et al. Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION

Date published: Jan 7, 2014

Citations

No. 1:12-cv-1332-CL (D. Or. Jan. 7, 2014)