From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

McQuisten v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Apr 8, 2010
Civil Case No. 08-408-SU (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2010)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 08-408-SU.

April 8, 2010

Terry L. McQuisten, Baker City, Oregon, Pro Se Plaintiff.

Dwight C. Holton, United States Attorney, District of Oregon, Kevin Danielson, Assistant United States Attorney, Portland, Oregon, Attorneys for Defendants.


ORDER


The Honorable Patricia Sullivan, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on March 5, 2010. Plaintiff filed timely objections to the Findings and Recommendation.

When either party objects to any portion of a magistrate's Findings and Recommendation concerning a dispositive motion or prisoner petition, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b);McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982). This court has, therefore, given de novo review of the rulings of Magistrate Judge Sullivan.

This court ADOPTS the Findings and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Sullivan (#31) dated March 5, 2010 in its entirety.

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment (#19) is GRANTED.

DATED this 8th day of April, 2010.


Summaries of

McQuisten v. U.S.

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Apr 8, 2010
Civil Case No. 08-408-SU (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2010)
Case details for

McQuisten v. U.S.

Case Details

Full title:TERRY L. McQUISTEN, Plaintiff, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, U.S…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division

Date published: Apr 8, 2010

Citations

Civil Case No. 08-408-SU (D. Or. Apr. 8, 2010)