From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Hooper v. Jackson Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
May 20, 2014
1:13-cv-1400-CL (D. Or. May. 20, 2014)

Opinion

1:13-cv-1400-CL

05-20-2014

DENNIS RUSSELL HOOPER, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

PANNER, J.

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, I review legal principles de novo. See Robbins v. Carey, 481 F.3d 1143, 1147 (9th Cir. 2007).

I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff has failed to state a claim based on the alleged failure to reimburse. I also agree that plaintiff's other claims against the Jackson County Sheriff's Office, liberally construed, should not be dismissed at this time.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#31) is adopted. Defendants' motion to dismiss (#25) is granted as to the claim for failure to reimburse and otherwise denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Hooper v. Jackson Cnty. Sheriff's Office

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
May 20, 2014
1:13-cv-1400-CL (D. Or. May. 20, 2014)
Case details for

Hooper v. Jackson Cnty. Sheriff's Office

Case Details

Full title:DENNIS RUSSELL HOOPER, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE, et…

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

Date published: May 20, 2014

Citations

1:13-cv-1400-CL (D. Or. May. 20, 2014)