Opinion
Civil No. 03-755-CO.
December 16, 2003
ORDER
Magistrate Judge John P. Cooney filed Findings and Recommendation on November 13, 2003, 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).
Plaintiff has timely filed objections. I have, therefore, givende novo review of Magistrate Judge Cooney's rulings.
I find no error. Accordingly, I ADOPT Magistrate Judge Cooney's Findings and Recommendation filed November 13, 2003, in its entirety. Defendants' motion to dismiss (#9) is allowed. Plaintiff's first claim for relief is dismissed with prejudice on the ground that it is barred by the two year statute of limitations. Plaintiff's second claim for relief is dismissed on the ground that it fails to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment. Plaintiff is allowed 30 days to file an amended complaint as to his claim of denial of access to the court.
IT IS SO ORDERED.