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