From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Murray v. Department of Consumer

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Sep 10, 2010
CV 09-1292-HU (D. Or. Sep. 10, 2010)

Summary

holding that Rooker-Feldman does apply where, under state law, the ALJ's decision is a "final order" when not appealed in state court

Summary of this case from Elliott v. Registrar of Contractors

Opinion

CV 09-1292-HU.

September 10, 2010


OPINION AND ORDER


On August 12, 2010, Magistrate Judge Dennis Hubel filed his Findings and Recommendation (doc. 48) that the court grant Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (doc. 35) Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Magistrate Judge Hubel also recommended that the court deny Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 45).

The matter is now before me. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b). Neither party timely filed objections. This relieves me of my obligation to review Magistrate Judge Hubel's factual findings de novo. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Simpson v. Lear Astronics Corp., 77 F.3d 1170, 1174-75 (9th Cir. 1996). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Hubel's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 48) as my own opinion. Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (doc. 35) is GRANTED, and this action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (doc. 45) is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED this 10 day of September, 2010.


Summaries of

Murray v. Department of Consumer

United States District Court, D. Oregon, Portland Division
Sep 10, 2010
CV 09-1292-HU (D. Or. Sep. 10, 2010)

holding that Rooker-Feldman does apply where, under state law, the ALJ's decision is a "final order" when not appealed in state court

Summary of this case from Elliott v. Registrar of Contractors
Case details for

Murray v. Department of Consumer

Case Details

Full title:TAMMIE L. MURRAY, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF CONSUMER and BUSINESS…

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

Date published: Sep 10, 2010

Citations

CV 09-1292-HU (D. Or. Sep. 10, 2010)

Citing Cases

Zayas v. Messitt

Because Mr. La Raus's Rooker-Feldman argument challenges the Court's subject matter jurisdiction, the Court…

Weems v. Or. Univ. Sys.

Regardless, while not expressly raised by defendants, attorneys with the ODOJ are protected by absolute…