Stafford v. Powers

Full title: NEIL B. STAFFORD, Plaintiff, v. STEVEN POWERS, et al., Defendants

Court: United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Apr 9, 2010

Civ. No. 09-3031-CL (D. Or. Apr. 9, 2010)

Opinion

Civ. No. 09-3031-CL.

April 9, 2010

ORDER

OWEN 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 must make 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, petitioner objects to the Report and Recommendation, and I have reviewed this matter de novo. I agree with the Report and Recommendation that defendants are entitled to immunity from plaintiff's damages claims. I also agree that plaintiff failed to show that the predatory sex offender designation violated his due process rights.

CONCLUSION

Magistrate Judge Clarke's Report and Recommendation (#60) is adopted. Defendants' motion for summary judgment (#38) is granted in part and denied in part. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment (#47) is denied. Judgment is for defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.