From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Luquin v. Jackson Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Mar 14, 2014
No. 1:13-cv-1650-CL (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2014)

Opinion

No. 1:13-cv-1650-CL

03-14-2014

JEREMY LUQUIN, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

PANNER, District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Although no objections have been filed, this court reviews legal principles de novo. See Lorin Corp. v Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983).

After reviewing the file, I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke that plaintiff cannot state a claim for relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. I also agree that this court should decline to exercise jurisdiction over plaintiff's remaining claims, which are under state law.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#17) is adopted. Defendants' motion to dismiss (#6) is granted with prejudice as to plaintiff's claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and without prejudice and leave to refile in state court as to plaintiff's remaining claims under state law.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

__________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Luquin v. Jackson Cnty.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON MEDFORD DIVISION
Mar 14, 2014
No. 1:13-cv-1650-CL (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2014)
Case details for

Luquin v. Jackson Cnty.

Case Details

Full title:JEREMY LUQUIN, Plaintiff, v. JACKSON COUNTY, et al., Defendants.

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

Date published: Mar 14, 2014

Citations

No. 1:13-cv-1650-CL (D. Or. Mar. 14, 2014)