From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Spradley v. Nooth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 1, 2012
Civ. No. 6:11-CV-6366-TC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2012)

Opinion

Civ. No. 6:11-CV-6366-TC

11-01-2012

JOHN LLOYD SPRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. MARK NOOTH, et al., Defendants.


ORDER

AIKEN, Chief Judge:

Magistrate Judge Coffin filed his Findings and Recommendation on September 2 6, 2012. The matter is now before me pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). When a party objects to any portion of the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation, the district court must make a de novo determination of that portion of the Magistrate's report. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Business Machines, 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 920 (1982).

Plaintiff timely filed 11 pages of hand written objections, along with two exhibits (doc. 31), which were all considered by this court. Defendants did not file any response to the objections. Judge Coffin then denied plaintiff's request for appointment of counsel (doc. 47). I have given the file of this case a de novo review. In conclusion, I ADOPT the Magistrate's Findings and Recommendation (doc. 41) granting defendants' summary judgment motion (doc. 31) and dismissing this action with prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________

Ann Aiken

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Spradley v. Nooth

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Nov 1, 2012
Civ. No. 6:11-CV-6366-TC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2012)
Case details for

Spradley v. Nooth

Case Details

Full title:JOHN LLOYD SPRADLEY, Plaintiff, v. MARK NOOTH, et al., Defendants.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Nov 1, 2012

Citations

Civ. No. 6:11-CV-6366-TC (D. Or. Nov. 1, 2012)