From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

KNICKREHM v. HAUB

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 28, 2005
Civil No. 05-6338-TC (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-6338-TC.

November 28, 2005


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin Findings and Recommendation on November 7, 2005, 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 "Conditional Acceptance of [U.S. Magistrate] Thomas M. Coffin's Findings and Recommendation Upon Proof of Claims," which this courts construes as plaintiff's objections. I have, therefore, given de novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation filed November 7, 2005, in its entirety. Plaintiff's complaint is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

KNICKREHM v. HAUB

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Nov 28, 2005
Civil No. 05-6338-TC (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2005)
Case details for

KNICKREHM v. HAUB

Case Details

Full title:WARNER-YUNG KNICKREHM, Plaintiff, v. JOHNATHAN S. HAUB and ROBERT E…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 28, 2005

Citations

Civil No. 05-6338-TC (D. Or. Nov. 28, 2005)