Gaines v. Nordstrom, Inc.

Full title: ARTISSA GAINES, Plaintiff, v. NORDSTROM, INC., AMBER POWERS, UDY THOMAS…

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Sep 26, 2005

No. CV 05-689-JE (D. Or. Sep. 26, 2005)

Opinion

No. CV 05-689-JE.

September 26, 2005

CEDRIC R. BROWN, Portland, OR, Attorney for Plaintiff.¹

1 Plaintiff filed her Complaint and Response to Defendant Nordstrom's Motion to Dismiss pro se. On July 27, 2005, after this matter was referred to this Court for review, Cedric Brown filed a Notice of Representation.

STEPHEN P. McCARTHY, Lane Powell, PC, Portland, OR, Attorneys for Defendant Nordstrom.²

2 Plaintiff has served only Defendant Nordstrom as of the date of this Order.

ORDER

ANNA BROWN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge John Jelderks issued Findings and Recommendation (#18) on July 15, 2005, in which he recommended the Court grant Defendant Nordstrom's Motion to Dismiss (#8). The matter is now before this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b).

Because no objections to the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation were timely filed, this Court is relieved of its obligation to review the record de novo. Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9^th Cir. 1983). See also Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8^th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, the Court does not find any error.

As noted, even though Plaintiff retained counsel after this matter was referred to the Court for review, Plaintiff filed her complaint pro se. In civil rights cases involving a plaintiff proceeding pro se, this Court construes the pleadings liberally and affords the plaintiff the benefit of any doubt. McGuckin v. Smith, 974 F.2d 1050, 1055 (9th Cir. 1992), overruled on other grounds by WMX Tech., Inc. v. Miller, 104 F.3d 1133, 1136 (9th Cir. 1998). See also Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept., 839 F.2d 621, 623 (9th Cir. 1988). Before dismissing a pro se civil rights complaint, the court must provide the plaintiff with a statement of the complaint's deficiencies. McGuckin, 974 F.2d at 1055. See also Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623-24; Eldridge v. Block, 832 F.2d 1132, 1136 (9th Cir. 1987). The court will permit a pro se litigant to amend his complaint unless it is absolutely clear that the deficiencies of the complaint cannot be cured by amendment. Karim-Panahi, 839 F.2d at 623. See also Noll v. Carlson, 809 F.2d 1446, 1447 (9th Cir. 1987). The Court, therefore, grants Plaintiff leave to amend her Complaint by October 10, 2005.

CONCLUSION

The Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Jelderks's Findings and Recommendation (#18) and GRANTS Defendant Nordstrom's Motion to Dismiss (#8). The Court concludes the Magistrate Judge's Findings and Recommendation adequately explain the deficiencies in Plaintiff's attempted § 1983 claims against Defendant Nordstrom. Although this Court agrees there is not any way Plaintiff can overcome the deficiencies as to the § 1983 claim, the Court concludes it may be possible the Court would have supplemental jurisdiction over possible state claims against Defendant Nordstrom while it retains jurisdiction as to the § 1983 claim against the police officer Defendants, who, as yet, have not been served and thus, have not appeared. The Court, therefore also GRANTS Plaintiff leave to file an amended complaint by October 10, 2005.

IT IS SO ORDERED.