From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Haight v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jun 1, 2017
Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00014-CL (D. Or. Jun. 1, 2017)

Opinion

Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00014-CL

06-01-2017

TRISHA R. HAIGHT, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.


OPINION and ORDER :

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Findings and Recommendation (ECF No. 14) and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. After having reviewed the legal principles and the Plaintiff's Objections (ECF No. 17), I find no error and conclude it is correct. United States v. Bernhardt, 840 F.2d 1441, 1445 (9th Cir. 1998).

Judge Clarke's Findings and Recommendation is adopted in its entirety and the Defendant's Motion to Set Aside the Default Judgment (ECF No. 9) is GRANTED because the state court default judgment is void due to improper service on the USDA. IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 1st day of June, 2017.

/s/ _________

Michael J. McShane

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Haight v. United States

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Jun 1, 2017
Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00014-CL (D. Or. Jun. 1, 2017)
Case details for

Haight v. United States

Case Details

Full title:TRISHA R. HAIGHT, Plaintiff, v. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Jun 1, 2017

Citations

Civ. No. 1:17-cv-00014-CL (D. Or. Jun. 1, 2017)