From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Himebaugh v. Hall

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 16, 2007
Civil No. 06-6041-TC (D. Or. Apr. 16, 2007)

Opinion

Civil No. 06-6041-TC.

April 16, 2007


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on March 19, 2007, in the above entitled case. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate judge's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate judge's report. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed March 19, 2007, in its entirety. Defendants' un-enumerated 12B motion to dismiss (#18) is allowed. In addition, plaintiff's claims are denied and this action is dismissed for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff's un-enumerated 12B motion to dismiss (#20) is denied as moot.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Himebaugh v. Hall

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Apr 16, 2007
Civil No. 06-6041-TC (D. Or. Apr. 16, 2007)
Case details for

Himebaugh v. Hall

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL HIMEBAUGH, Plaintiff, v. GUY HALL, et al., Defendants

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 16, 2007

Citations

Civil No. 06-6041-TC (D. Or. Apr. 16, 2007)