Opinion
Civ. No. 04-6372-CO.
January 10, 2006
ORDER
Magistrate Judge Cooney filed his Findings and Recommendation on November 21, 2005. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).
Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this case a de novo review. This court underscores Judge Cooney's finding that all documents pertaining to the foreclosure and sale of plaintiff's property were attached to the affidavits submitted with defendants' motion for summary judgment. Further, plaintiff fails to provide any evidence whatsoever showing that he had, in fact, paid his taxes in a timely matter, or that he was not provided the notice required under Oregon law in order to foreclose on tax-delinquent properties.
Therefore, I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 28) that defendants' summary judgment motion (doc. 19) and motion to dismiss (doc. 16) are granted and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED.