Patrick v. Mickelson

Full title: WILLIAM PATRICK, Plaintiff, v. JUDGE RICHARD MICKELSON, Defendant

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Jul 22, 2005

Civil No. 05-3035-CO (D. Or. Jul. 22, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 05-3035-CO.

July 22, 2005

ORDER

MICHAEL HOGAN, Chief Judge, District

Magistrate Judge John P. Cooney filed Findings and Recommendation on June 21, 2005, 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 June 21, 2005, in its entirety. Defendant's motion to dismiss (#4) is granted, and judgment will be entered dismissing this case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.