Himebaugh v. Hall

Full title: MICHAEL HIMEBAUGH, Plaintiff, v. GUY HALL, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Mar 21, 2007

Civil No. 06-6183-TC (D. Or. Mar. 21, 2007)

Opinion

Civil No. 06-6183-TC.

March 21, 2007

ORDER

MICHAEL HOGAN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on February 27, 2007. The matter is now before me.See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1982).See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation. Defendant's motion to dismiss is allowed. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.