From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Vitale v. Kroger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 20, 2012
3: 11-cv-1189-TC (D. Or. Aug. 20, 2012)

Opinion

3: 11-cv-1189-TC

08-20-2012

ZACHARIAH J. VITALE, Petitioner, v. JOHN KROGER, Defendant.


ORDER

Magistrate Judge Thomas M Coffin has filed his Findings and Recommendation on July 10, 2012. The matter is now before me. 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.2d 1202, 1206 (9th Cir. 1982). 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 Judge Coffin's Findings and Recommendation. Petitioner's petition (#1) and amended petition (#13) are denied. Petitioner's motion for appointment of counsel (#30) is denied as moot. This proceeding is dismissed. The clerk of court will enter judgment accordingly.

_________________

United States District Judge


Summaries of

Vitale v. Kroger

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
Aug 20, 2012
3: 11-cv-1189-TC (D. Or. Aug. 20, 2012)
Case details for

Vitale v. Kroger

Case Details

Full title:ZACHARIAH J. VITALE, Petitioner, v. JOHN KROGER, Defendant.

Court:UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON

Date published: Aug 20, 2012

Citations

3: 11-cv-1189-TC (D. Or. Aug. 20, 2012)