Ponder v. Porter

Full title: JOSEPH PONDER, Plaintiff, v. WILLIAM PORTER, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Nov 30, 2005

Civil No. 04-6280-TC (D. Or. Nov. 30, 2005)

Opinion

Civil No. 04-6280-TC.

November 30, 2005

ORDER

MICHAEL HOGAN, District Judge

Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on November 16, 2005. 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 Dist., 708 F.2d 452, 454 (9th Cir. 1983). Having reviewed the legal principles de novo, I find no error.

Accordingly, I ADOPT Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#60) is allowed. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (#76, #79) are denied. This action is dismissed with prejudice.

IT IS SO ORDERED.