From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Mann v. Decamp

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 8, 2010
Civ. No. 09-1153-TC (D. Or. Jun. 8, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-1153-TC.

June 8, 2010


ORDER


Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on May 6, 2010. 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).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given the file of this ease a de novo review. I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 25) that petitioner's Petition should be denied without prejudice, and therefore petitioner's Petition (doc. 2) is dismissed.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Mann v. Decamp

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Jun 8, 2010
Civ. No. 09-1153-TC (D. Or. Jun. 8, 2010)
Case details for

Mann v. Decamp

Case Details

Full title:ROBERT MANN, Petitioner, v. JOE DECAMP, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jun 8, 2010

Citations

Civ. No. 09-1153-TC (D. Or. Jun. 8, 2010)