From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Massey v. Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 23, 2012
3:11-cv-01294-TC (D. Or. Apr. 23, 2012)

Opinion

3:11-cv-01294-TC

04-23-2012

STEPHEN COLLIS MASSEY, Petitioner, v. J.E. THOMAS, Respondent.


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed Findings and Recommendation on March 16, 2012, 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).

Petitioner has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, given pig novo review of Magistrate Judge Coffin's rulings.

I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Coffin's Findings and Recominendation filed March 16, 2012, in its entirety. Petitioner's petition (#2) is denied. This proceeding is dismissed. The clerk of court will enter judgment accordingly.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

_________________

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Massey v. Thomas

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Apr 23, 2012
3:11-cv-01294-TC (D. Or. Apr. 23, 2012)
Case details for

Massey v. Thomas

Case Details

Full title:STEPHEN COLLIS MASSEY, Petitioner, v. J.E. THOMAS, Respondent.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Apr 23, 2012

Citations

3:11-cv-01294-TC (D. Or. Apr. 23, 2012)