From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harris v. U.S. Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Nov 5, 2012
Case No. 1:12-cv-1074-CL (D. Or. Nov. 5, 2012)

Opinion

Case No. 1:12-cv-1074-CL

11-05-2012

EARL C. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK, 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). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that the complaint does not state a claim for relief, and that dismissal should be with prejudice. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#50) is adopted. This action is dismissed with prejudice. Plaintiff's pending motions (##35, 39, 41, 43, and 46) and Grensky's motion to dismiss (#55) are denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Harris v. U.S. Bank

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Nov 5, 2012
Case No. 1:12-cv-1074-CL (D. Or. Nov. 5, 2012)
Case details for

Harris v. U.S. Bank

Case Details

Full title:EARL C. HARRIS, Plaintiff, v. U.S. BANK, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Nov 5, 2012

Citations

Case No. 1:12-cv-1074-CL (D. Or. Nov. 5, 2012)