From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Maxfield v. Fairall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Oct 31, 2011
Civil No. 11-285-TC (D. Or. Oct. 31, 2011)

Opinion

Civil No. 11-285-TC

10-31-2011

BRANDON MAXFIELD, Plaintiff v. GLENN FAIRALL, Defendant.


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Thomas M Coffin has filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 22, 2011. The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). No objections have been timely filed. This relieves me of my obligation to give the factual findings de novo review. Lorin Corp. v. Goto & Co., Ltd., 700 F.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1982). See also Britt v. Simi Valley Unified School Dost., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Coffins Findings and Recommendation. Defendant's motion to dismiss (#12) is allowed. This proceeding is dismissed. The clerk of court will enter judgment accordingly.

___________________________________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Maxfield v. Fairall

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Oct 31, 2011
Civil No. 11-285-TC (D. Or. Oct. 31, 2011)
Case details for

Maxfield v. Fairall

Case Details

Full title:BRANDON MAXFIELD, Plaintiff v. GLENN FAIRALL, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Oct 31, 2011

Citations

Civil No. 11-285-TC (D. Or. Oct. 31, 2011)