From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rogers v. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Dec 19, 2011
No. 1:09-CV-06198-CL (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2011)

Opinion

No. 1:09-CV-06198-CL

12-19-2011

JAMES RUSSELL ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. FRANK THOMPSON, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

PANNER , District Judge:

Magistrate Judge Mark D. Clarke filed a Report and Recommendation, and the matter is now before this court. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When either party objects to any portion of a Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation, the district court makes a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate Judge's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F. 2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981).

Here, plaintiff objects to the Report and Recommendation, so I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with Magistrate Judge Clarke's conclusion that plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies for his claims. Accordingly, I ADOPT the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Clarke.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#53) is adopted. Defendants' motion to dismiss (#43) is granted and plaintiff's first amended complaint (#5) is dismissed without prejudice. Plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel (#70) is denied.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________

OWEN M. PANNER

U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE


Summaries of

Rogers v. Thompson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Dec 19, 2011
No. 1:09-CV-06198-CL (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2011)
Case details for

Rogers v. Thompson

Case Details

Full title:JAMES RUSSELL ROGERS, Plaintiff, v. FRANK THOMPSON, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Dec 19, 2011

Citations

No. 1:09-CV-06198-CL (D. Or. Dec. 19, 2011)