From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Stull v. Giusto

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Sep 20, 2007
Civil Case No. 06-1596-PK (D. Or. Sep. 20, 2007)

Opinion

Civil Case No. 06-1596-PK.

September 20, 2007

Barry Joe Stull, Portland, Oregon, Pro Se Plaintiff.

David N. Blankfeld, Multnomah County Attorney's Office, Portland, Oregon, Attorney for Defendants.


ORDER


The Honorable Paul Papak, United States Magistrate Judge, filed Findings and Recommendation on August 1, 2007. The matter is before this court. 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.2nd 1202, 1206 (8th Cir. 1983); 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 Magistrate Judge Papak's Findings and Recommendation (#20). IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (#9) is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Response to Motion for Summary Judgment (#19) is construed as a request for leave to amend the complaint to name additional defendants and it is GRANTED. Plaintiff may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date of this order.


Summaries of

Stull v. Giusto

United States District Court, D. Oregon
Sep 20, 2007
Civil Case No. 06-1596-PK (D. Or. Sep. 20, 2007)
Case details for

Stull v. Giusto

Case Details

Full title:BARRY JOE STULL, Plaintiff, v. BERNIE GIUSTO AND THE MULTNOMAH COUNTY…

Court:United States District Court, D. Oregon

Date published: Sep 20, 2007

Citations

Civil Case No. 06-1596-PK (D. Or. Sep. 20, 2007)

Citing Cases

Schliske v. Albany Police Dept

However, I grant plaintiff leave to amend his complaint, because the parties' motions and supporting…